ART. IX.-QUARTERLY BOOK TABLE. Systematic Theology. By CHARLES HODGE, D.D., Professor in the Theological IN enumerating the many intellectual monarchs so singularly numerous at the present day, whose heads, are crowned with the glory of years and honors, Thiers, Guizot, Wilhelm, Bryant, etc., neither last nor least should stand the name of Charles Hodge. We remember him early in our own under-graduate days as the then emiment professor and editor. His Theology, of three volumes octavo and two thousand total pages, is not only the solid deposit of his earlier and maturer years, but its argument, brought down to the latest dates, is as young and fresh as it is old and permanent. The serene repose of his age is doubtless too self-possessed to be proud of any thing; but great must be his satisfaction at surveying this massive life's work, the memento of years of thought, the strong defense of his faith, a monument and a muniment. There is a large amount of this Theology which speaks clearly and ably the common doctrines of the evangelical Church. It does not possess the stately vigor nor the rapid decisive logic of Watson; but its learning is more rich and wide, and, as a statement and history of the various doctrinal views that have held possession in the Church, it has a value for every theological inquirer. The style is neither sententious nor rhetorical, but natural and perspicuous, seldom requiring a sentence to be read a second time in order to be understood. It is to be regretted that so many extended passages occur in German and Latiu-rarely in any other language-untranslated. If it be important to give the very words, a foot-note translation should be added. Complaint there is, indeed, from theologians in different quarters, that their views are not correctly stated; but no human hand, guided by a human intellect, could so frame statements on so extended a scale as to avoid the possibility of such complaints. His statements, to our own eye, are sometimes, thongh exceptionally, colored and framed for the result to be finally deduced. And yet there is an immense remainder, written in a style of perfect perspicuity, which the whole Protestant Church can gratefully accept, and write its author among its honored names. But there is central within it a sad anachronism. Its central theology is, fatally for it, the theology of fatalism. It is the theology neither of the morning nor the evening of the Christian Church. It was begotten in the Middle Ages, and is already obsolescent and ready to vanish away. It is dying from out the pulpit where it once reigned, and the stately tomes within which it is embodied have within themselves the sentence of already approaching death. The fatal death-spot in Dr. Hodge's theology is this FATALISM. He manifests his consciousness of this fact by his plentiful flounces and flounderings upon the subject. He denounces fatalism, proclaims freedom, free-agency, responsibility, in high-sounding words and periods. But all in vain. "Hæret lethalis arundo"-the fatal arrow sticks, and the struggling victim is doomed. His wordy dissertations of long pages can be answered in as many lines. For analyze his freedom, and you soon find that it ultimates in fatalism. The central fatal point is this-Dr. Hodge teaches that all the damned are damned for what they could not help. His freedom is the same old clockhammer freedom-the power of doing no otherwise that you do. Every sin ever committed was inevitable sin. Every reprobate is damned for sin he never could avoid. And the theology that teaches that is itself doomed. Such a theology, gendered in the addled brains of schoolmen, is contradicted by the plain moral sense and common sense of mankind; and just so fast as that common sense comes to confidence in itself does that theology stand before its bar, condemned. Or, to say the same thing more in the terms of science: such a theology is contradicted by the highest and purest spiritual intuitions written by God's own finger on the tablets of the human soul. God and man, therefore, pronounce it untruth. It is an insult to man, and a libel upon God. It fails to be blasphemy only because the intention of blasphemy is absent, and the heart is really, though mistakenly, reverent. If Dr. Hodge's spirit truly worships the God his theology describes, he and we worship two different deities. For we should fear as a mortal sin to worship the awful Phantasm his theology pictures. That Phantasm we are ethically bound to hate and abhor with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Should we ethically love that Phantasm, and thereby become transformed to its ethical likeness, we should unquestionably become a devil. But we believe, as we have often intimated, that the spirit of men like Dr. Hodge does most truly worship, not the Phantasm of their understanding, but the true and holy God. Through all the mists of our human error, God recogFOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXV.-32 nizes the purpose of true and humble worship, appropriates that worship to himself, and returns it back in blessing on the worshiper. And thus we hold that there is many a transubstantiationist who is no real idolater. Even through the wafer symbol God can know the holy purpose, and take the worship to himself. Hence there has been, and is, many a Catholic, as well as many a Calvinist, upon whose piety we look with profound reverence and love. Dr. Hodge skillfully aims to impart status and archaic dignity to his theology by presenting it as "the theology of the Reformation." He bestows this title not only upon what we call "the theology of the Reformation"-including only those basal principles by which the whole papal hierarchism is contradicted and overthrown, namely, the supreme authority of Scripture and justification by faith-but those points which many a Romanist could indorse, as imputation and predestination. Pupils and readers alike Dr. Hodge reins up to understand that the Bible is to be interpreted by the old Reformers. Their works take the place for Protestants occupied by "tradition" for Catholics. From their high original Lutheranism, Arminianism and Wesleyanism are each a degeneration, at greater and greater distances and descents. Some of the unlovely phases, however, of that "theology of the Reformation" are exhibited in the Fourth Article of this present Quarterly. Its exhibit is amply sufficient to show that, however grateful we may be to the Reformers for their heroism in action, we can hardly accept them as our entire masters of doctrine. Dr. H. slurs the three or four first centuries of the Christian era as undeveloped in their doctrines. The age of "systematic theo!ogy" came with Augustine. But he depreciates the post-apostolic age because the post-apostolic age depreciates him. He pronounces it "undeveloped" because it pronounces him unorthodox. In common with Arminius and Wesley, we revere these holy, martyr, primitive centuries. We believe that they were as orthodox as any age that has succeeded them. We believe that they had a more coherent and a far truer theology than Augustine or Calvin. If we are to choose between the two ages, we would by far trust ourself, for soundness of doctrine and certainty of salvation, with the Church of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Origen and Irenæus than with that of Zuinglius, Calvin, Gomarus and Bogerman. This recurrence to the primitive Christianity is a process now in progress, at which many thinkers are in an unnecessary fright. They mistake as an abandonment of faith what is truly an abandonment of dogmatic scholasticism and a return to the primitive simplicity of the true faith. The Pagan philosopher, Pliny, reported to Trajan, Emperor of Rome, in the closing days of the first century, that the Christians were guilty of nothing more than meeting before daylight, on a regular day, singing a hymn to Christ as to God, and partaking a harmless meal. Here was the Sabbath, the divinity of Christ, and the sacrament; an outline of Christian faith and practice. And these simple believers had a "theology" for which they were willing to live or die. It made them holy in life, and heroic and happy in the final hour. If the interpretation of Scripture needs a regulative aid, let us seek it in the age most near to the Scripture writers. We shall find no predestination there! The Doctrine of Hell; Ventilated in a Discussion between the Rev. C. A. Walworth and William Henry Burr, Esq. 24mo., pp. 151. New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1873. A decidedly piquant though eminently courteous discussion, with an interesting history to it. Mr. Walworth, son of the late Chancellor, and Mr. Burr, were college classmates, and both were "converted" at the same "revival" under Elder Knapp, and "got religion." Like the two Newmans, they thence diverged in opposite directions: Walworth to Catholicism, and Burr to infidelity, spiritualism, aud an editorship of the Boston "Investigator." Being misrepresented in that paper as doubting Papal infallibility, Walworth interposes a denial in the infidel columns, and with explicit clearness professes his faith in that dogma which amazes alike Christendom and Infideldom. Thereupon Mr. Burr lights down upon the daring priest, who meets him with the most admirable presence of mind, fluent style, and dialectic skill. Much of that skill is displayed, however, in non-commitalism; in refusing to accept quotations from current Romanistic literature actually circulated by the authorized machineries of the Church, and declining to admit any thing outside the two hundred and seventy-six pages octavo of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. Mr. Burr in his first salute twits both Mr. Walworth and himself with their "conversion," owns his contempt for the whole affair, especially for Mr. Knapp's appalling pictures of hell, and taunts Mr. Walworth with the inquiry, What does he think about it? To his surprise, doubtless, Mr. Walworth replies : Why should I look upon that early "conversion" as a delusion? It was based upon a faith which I then had and still have. I look back to it with pleasure. I feel grateful to Elder Knapp for the part which he had in it. I look back with love and reverence to my parents first, and, after them, to every voice that ever taught me to believe, or sought to rouse my believing conscience to its duty. My answer to Mr. Burr's question must not be understood as an indorsement of Protestantism in any form. I do not look upon Protestant Churches as channels of grace, or as having any divine authority whatever. They are merely humau institutions, and owe their origin to rebellion against the Church of Christ. If I entertain hopes of the salvation of individual Protestants, it is because, by their baptism, by that portion of Christian doctrine to which they still hold, and by the living faith and love of God which is in them, they are members of the true Catholic Church, united by this lien to the soul of that Church, although unconsciously astray from her body or visible fold.-Pp. 18, 19. On the nature of Hell Mr. Walworth thus gives his views, which are those of "Catholic theologians," and uncondemned, it would seem, if not asserted, by Trent: It is impossible to have any clear and adequate idea of hell without a correct notion of heaven. That state of final beatitude which we call heaven consists in the everlasting vision of God. There, as the apostle tells us, we shall see him as he is, and face to face. This is not a natural state.. No conceivable perfectibility of man in the natural order could ever attain to it. It is something supernatural, It lies in a higher plane. For this that is, a gift above and beyond man's nature. It is his original destiny, God's supernatural end, nevertheless, man was created. ultimate design in his creation, reaching not only beyond such happiness as is attainable in this life, but also beyond the range and scope of his natural powers in any future life. To reach this supernatural vision of God is heaven, is This is the main and essential salvation. To fall short of it is hell, is perdition. idea of hell, whatever other pains may be incidental to that state. When in discussion we lose sight of this cardinal idea, we only "darken wisdom by words without knowledge." And now, to enforce and impress this as the only essential and constitutent idea of hell, let me illustrate. Suppose that one of our race in the world to come should find himself deprived of the vision of God, and therefore of that supernatural bliss which constitutes heaven. Suppose, however, that he should still be happy thus far, namely, should be free from every species of physical pain, and should enjoy a happiness which, although confined to the natural reach of his faculties, should nevertheless be perfect and complete in its kind, and far beyond any thing which this present world It would still be hell. can afford. And, finally, suppose that this happiness should be confirmed to him forever. Would this be heaven, or any thing like it? No. It would be a lost destiny. And yet it would be a greater felicity than the most progressive infidel has ever dreamed of. Such a state could not argue cruelty on the part of God, unless infidel doctrine be confessed as still more cruel.-Pp. 48-50. Of course, it is very different with those who are not innocent of actual sin. They incur something more than this penalty of a lost destiny. In proportion to the degree of their sinfulness they deprive themselves also of natural happiness, and incur positive punishment. Since, moreover, man is a mixed being, composed of soul and body, (both pertaining to the integrity of his nature, and both taking part in sin,) both must share also in the punishment.-Pp. 51, 52. To Mr. Burr's hope that Mr. Walworth will concede some salvation to him, based on works, the latter replies: I would joyfully embrace you, also, if your good works were what we mean in theology by good works, namely, good works proceeding from divine charity, or the love of God above all things. But this can only proceed from a supernatural and living faith.-Pp. 36. How liberal he can be to even infidels he thus states: I am, however, no bigot, but ready to acknowledge all good wherever I find it. I can recognize good qualities in infidels-qualities which are good by natural endowment and by cultivation, although not elevated to a supernatural platform, and |