It is thus that the divine, the spiritual, and the moral elements are eliminated from theology, and nothing is left but metaphysics on the one hand, at war with a theory of physics on the other. Metaphysics assumes that time and space and number are infinite, each in its own way; and Materialism treats us to another infinite, namely, an infinite universe-a universe which includes in itself all that can exist in the other three infinites. Idealism, a special form of metaphysics, starts with one all-embracing infinite as its only factor, annihilates time and space, and then recognizes nothing but its own "activities." No thinker who has any respect for the teachings of the Scriptures, or for the voice of common sense, should admit that such speculations have any kinship whatever with theology or religious truth. As the terms infinite and absolute are mere factors in an argument, logically connected with other factors, they should be allowed to pass as such, and for nothing more. It has ever been so easy for speculative writers to let go their hold of the divine nature in God and the spiritual in man, and sink down into the realm of speculative reason, that theology has suffered greatly from this source, and it is never free from danger.

Theology has also suffered from what Lotze describes as "the earnest longing of the mind to see nature developed as a unity from one source and on one plan." Against this tendency he decidedly protests, as if conscious that it destroys the true philosophic spirit in the investigator, and yet he becomes its absolute victim, the wanderings of his fancy in this direction amounting to mental aberration.

Let us glance at some of the dangers to which theology is exposed from the lazy inclination of man to simplify, and thus make easy, his studies by reducing different and distinct lines of thought to unity, or by making one science engulf all others. Since theology is rooted in both God and man it touches the science of psychology at all of its most essential points. It recognizes intellect, will, conscience, and feeling, but simply and only in their moral relations. As a result of this contiguity of the two lines of thought the rationalistic psychologist, urged on by his "craving" for unity, finds himself yielding to the temptation to engulf theology in his science; on the other hand, the theologian for the same reason attempts to oc

cupy the entire ground with his theology, and thus perform the laudable feat of preserving the "harmony of science and religion!" In both instances the compound of compounds thus formed, being an utter distortion of two distinct systems. of truth, gives us a true representation of nothing known to nature. The better way is by introspection to develop the science of psychology out of the elements of the mind without the least regard to theology or to any other science. Then isolated, alone, shining in its own light, and unmodified by any thing foreign to itself, we shall be able to see the mind as it really is. How it came to be or what its destiny is are questions that need not in this connection be raised. As the essence of mind is hopelessly beyond our reach the psychologist may begin his studies by inquiring: What are its powers? What are their relations to each other and to the body? and the more fully he studies mind as it is and nothing else, the clearer and more correct will be his conceptions of its phenomena and powers. In fact, we can see nothing distinctly unless it be made to stand forth alone, away from the shadows of other things. Theology should receive the same treatment, and nothing should be allowed to mar or modify its distinctive individuality.

Then when we have the two sciences well in hand it will be very proper by comparison and contrast to examine the relation they sustain to each other. As the most important inquiry that can be raised, we should ask: Do the two sciences, as separate and independent witnesses, testify to the same truth whenever they occupy the same ground?

The unity and harmony of the two sciences as the result of coalescence we should very much deprecate. If, in an attempt to bring about that result, we make pure psychology the standard of truth, then theology must be cramped, and stretched, and warped, and twisted in a thousand ways—in short, it must be mangled beyond recognition, and psychology left to stand alone as the embodiment of both; or if theology be made the standard of truth, then psychology must be subjected to like violence that agreement may be effected; or if both sciences are so modified that they will be able to blend and occupy common ground, then the compound will be neither, but form a nameless hybridous fiction. But this is

not all. If we allow theology to swallow up psychology, then the mind ultimately, under the power of a remorseless logic, will be led to recognize God as the only existence, and man's individuality will disappear; then there will be left us as the universe, the thought and "activity of the infinite,” with the capital "I" discarded. If in this process matter or extension is associated with thought, then we land in atheism or in the pantheism of Spinoza.

Whenever theology has felt constrained to adjust itself to any system of speculative philosophy it has suffered a loss of character and dignity by patronizing an interest which it should have regarded with indifference. The following facts will illustrate my meaning: Before embracing Christianity Augustine was thoroughly versed in Greek philosophy, and the fatalism it taught he had heartily embraced. He was seized with the "craving" for the unity of religion and necessity, and at once his vast and varied powers became enlisted in the work of its consummation. The most conspicuous and enduring labor of his life was his successful attempt in the interests of "harmony" to adjust the doctrines of Christian theology to the imperious demands of Greek philosophy. If at any point he failed, the deficiency was at a later day supplied by John Calvin. As a consequence of this effort at "reconciliation" the fair form of Christian doctrine has been torn and tortured for ages, in all lands, by such notions of "decrees," "predestination," "foreordination," "effectual calling," "perseverance," and "necessity" as caused millions of people to stand aghast and tremble, till many fled for refuge in some form of infidelity. How much better if he had, with a steady faith, adhered to plain Christian theology, and allowed heathen philosophy to take care of itself. Or, if in some of its Protean forms there comes up a philosophy that is worth fighting, we need not take the ark of God into the field, but use such weapons as we can easily capture from the enemy.

At the present time there is in many quarters an itching to push theology to the front and use it in the settlement of questions of geology, physics, evolution, chemistry, and anatomy. But since revelation touches these sciences only at a few points, and never attaches to any of them a moral quality, we care nothing for their teaching except when, as independent wit

nesses, they bear testimony to facts and doctrines which are fundamental in the Christian system. Theology fully recognizes the world of truth, but it is not amenable to any system of speculation nor responsible for it. Until a case of clear contradiction is made out we can take no interest in the labors of reconciliation. As there is no line of thought in the universe that can come up and share with theology its divine heights, so it should refuse to go down for the sake of being brought into harmony with any thing. Let theology hold its ground in the realm of the divine, the intellectual, the spiritual, and the moral, and its integrity will be preserved.

And why this "craving" for unity and harmony? The fact is, we don't want them. Would any thing be added to the value or beauty of the forest were all the trees so changed that in structure and appearance they would be like the pine or the chestnut? Who could wish that unity might be given to the fruitage of the orchard or the flowers of the field? The fact is, the unifying process demanded by philosophers and some theologians, if it could be made effective, would bring the confusion of chaos upon the whole realm of truth. Diversity and variety signify wealth of resources and not conflict of systems. Is not the unity of this universe the product of an infinite variety?

Some of the clamoring for harmony is made by modern philosophers. The theology of cosmology-a very gauzy substance is the form of religion they accept. The authorized exposition of this doctrine may be found in Spencer's evolution of his fanciful absolute. We are willing to put nature on the witness-stand and receive all the testimony it can give to facts. that come within its knowledge, and we have not a doubt that the truths thus established will coincide with all the truths of theology that bear upon the same topics. As an illustration, nature teaches that virtue promotes happiness-theology teaches the same lesson.

H.H. Moore.

ART. IV.-HISTORY OF THE CONFLICTS ON MORALS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, BY DRS. DÖLLINGER AND REUSCH.* THE interest which will always attend a good account of how a body of men may think on the eternal questions of right and wrong, and of how they may solve the problem as to what shall be our guide in determining the right, attaches in no ordinary degree to the present volumes. It is not every school of which the teaching on matters such as pilfering or embezzlement, lying or perjury, wrongful contract or breach of the marriage vow, smuggling or treason, rebellion or assassination of rulers, is of moment to the moral health of families, cities, and nations in the same degree as the teaching of the Post-Tridentine Church of Rome. Neither is it every author who in equipment or repute is the equal of Drs. Döllinger and Reusch.

Needing no fresh monument of their lore, these great scholars, in supplying a public want, have reared one; for in nearly eleven hundred pages before us every paragraph is the handiwork of masters in knowledge and laboring-men in research. In the second of the two volumes, indeed, they do not appear as authors, but as discoverers. It consists wholly of documents in Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish, and therefore is not of their writing, although it is their book. Of these documents a large part has been discovered in the archives of Munich, and these now, for the first time, publicly appear. Some of the documents had been already printed by two Dominicans-Concina and Patuzzi-but were known only to a small number of clerical readers, mostly in Italy.

From these documents is drawn the history contained in the first large volume. That is a narrative scrupulously faithful to the authorities; clear as day; sober, but far from dull; acute, yet avoiding subtleties. The authors always move with that ease of carriage which bespeaks conscious knowledge of the ground and familiar command of the facts. Their work ought to be speedily translated into English.

*Geschichte der Moralstreitig Reiten in der römisch Katolischen Kirche seit dem sechzehnten Jahrhundert, von Ignatz von Döllinger und Fr. Heinrich Reusch. Nördlingen, 1889. Two vols., octavo, pp. 687 and 398.