fails utterly." "The logical inconsistency of such theologians as Dorner and Müller" is instanced in illustration. It is a happy circumstance that students of theology now have in their hands the antidote and corrective of the weak and inconsequent reasonings of such men as Twesten, Nitzsch, Ebrard, Rothe, Dorner, and Julius Müller, men trained in the closest scientific exegesis and profound and life-long students of philosophy. That it is these weak and inconsequent German theologians who are influencing and shaping the world's religious thought, must be a discouraging reflection to those exponents of ancient systems at whose exegesis all modern criticism stands aghast and whose philosophies long since became matter of ancient history.

Although we have thus expressed our dissent from many of Dr. Shedd's opinions, we are yet gratified at the appearance of this treatise which presents in its most extreme form a type of theology which is rapidly passing away. In no other way than by the presentation of it in full by one of its foremost advocates, could it be made so plainly to appear how unbiblical and untenable it is. If an opponent of this system should characterize the old orthodoxy in many of the terms and definitions which Dr. Shedd employs, we venture to assert that half the world would declare that the representation was a caricature. It is as certain as that the world moves that this theology has had its day. Different conceptions of God's character and government, together with a grammatico-historical interpretation of the Scriptures, are rapidly overturning its foundations. It can no longer win the assent of most thoughtful minds which, though not averse to religious truth, can only be satisfied with a conception of God and his revelation which meets the wants of the reason and the heart, and which does not offend the highest instincts of the soul.

We think it should be frankly stated that it is such theology as this which not only renders plausible the attacks of the infidel upon Christian doctrine, but repels many earnest minds and drives them into utter skepticism and unbelief. There are cases, not a few, where bright-minded men in our theological institutions have been driven to an attitude, where, if they must suppose that this theology is a correct presentation of Christian

doctrine, they have no option but to abandon the idea of the Christian ministry. The inquiring student finds the mechanical, verbal inspiration theories perpetually disproved by his investigations. What is he to do? If there is no more tenable view of the Bible and its inspiration than this, his faith is in imminent peril. In his reflection he is striving after a conception of the divine character which shall lend help and hopefulness to life and clothe the action of God in history with dignity and beauty and he is told that God is a being that must be just but may be benevolent or not, and that he has unconditionally selected some for salvation and has consigned the rest of mankind to eternal damnation in advance, because they, when a part of undistributed human nature in Adam, committed his first sin. What are we to expect if young men are made to believe that this is essential Christian truth and necessary to be believed and preached? We are to expect skepticism and an increasing aversion to the Christian ministry, if not indeed to all Christian belief, and shall experience it. But happily the thinking of this age will not be brought to this dilemma. This type of theology should, however, understand its responsibility. There are scores of thoughtful men in our Seminaries and in the ministry whose Christian faith was saved only by unloading from their minds these burdens of mediæval speculation which are too grievous to be borne, and attaining more rational and tolerable thoughts of God, man, and their relations.

It may be further observed that Dr. Shedd's type of theology is purely rationalistic. It claims, indeed, to be a Biblical Theology in systematic form, but we appeal to any candid student of it to say whether this claim is sustained. Its leading positions are throughout matter of a priori definition, and texts of Scripture are then adduced, often by strained and untenable exegesis, to support the positions defined. We do not mean to imply that there is any objection to a priori theology as such. But let it avow its true character and not claim to be simply a Biblical Theology. A speculative system may be true, but it is to be judged and tested by philosophical criteria and has no right to claim for itself the protection of direct Biblical authority. Many of Dr. Shedd's theories, such as that of inspiration and his philosophy of our identity with Adam, are not derived

from the Bible but superimposed upon it. The former must stand the tests of history and criticism and the latter those of philosophy and ethics in the open courts of judgment which take cognizance of such questions.

We should have been glad to speak with as much emphasis in commendation of some features of Dr. Shedd's treatise, as we have put upon what seem to us to be some of its difficulties and defects. There will be plenty of persons, however, who will perform this more pleasant and gratifying task. It has seemed to us to be worth while to speak with frankness upon the difficulties of this system of theology as they appear to one whose indoctrination in it was happily discontinued in time to save his faith in the Holy Scriptures and in evangelical Christianity. If I have written with considerable spirit and warmth, it is because I have reason to feel the importance of a theology which shall be at once Biblical and rational, a theology which can be preached, and which can be accepted-as we think Dr. Shedd's cannot-by the mass of earnest, thinking men of our age. Though differing radically from Dr. Shedd as to the teaching and methods which shall be able to accomplish the result, we are entirely at one with him in the desire and effort to promote reverent acceptance of the Scriptures and of every essential truth of evangelical religion, by the thought and life of our generation. Widely as we are compelled to differ from him and insuperable as we deem the objections to his system of thought, we desire to bear testimony to the clearness, fulness, and vigor with which Dr. Shedd has presented his opinions.

GEORGE B. STEVENS.

ARTICLE II.-MR. PERCIVAL LOWELL'S MISCONCEPTION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE JAPANESE.

The Soul of the Far East. By PERCIVAL LOWELL, member of the Asiatic Society of Japan; author of "A Korean Coup d'Etat."

THIS is the title of the latest book on Japan and the Japanese. Its author is Mr. Percival Lowell. He does not, however, confine himself to Japan alone, but deals with the three nations of the extreme East-China, Corea, and Japan. But as he treats more particularly of the people of Japan, and as the book is full of exaggerated statements and fanciful inferences therefrom, I will venture to say a few words about the book to correct some of its errors, not simply in the interest of those of us who are natives of that country, but also for the benefit of many who are desirous to obtain a correct knowledge of the Mikado's Empire, and are solicitous for its welfare.

Nothing is so pleasing to the Japanese who are studying in this land of freedom and progress, in order to learn and carry back with us to our native island whatever is good and noble here in this great nation, as to observe the great interest manifested by the people here in the progress of our home lands. Japan owes a great debt to the United States for introducing her to the society of the Western nations, and feels grateful for what this great Republic has done towards her advancement in civilization. May the time soon come when Japan will stand among the community of civilized nations, as their equal; and possess the full political powers which are due to her as a sovereign State, but which are now unjustly taken away from her by the Christian nations of the world.

The present writer has no personal acquaintance with the author of the book which lies before him for comment. He cannot, however, help feeling that the author's knowledge of the Japanese is exceedingly superficial, and that he does not adequately understand and appreciate the spirit of the people. The book everywhere discloses his inadequate knowledge con

cerning the real animating ethical power which has made Japan what she is to-day. It is hardly necessary to say that no one can discuss the characteristic traits of any nationality without fully entering into the spirit of that people. In Mr. Lowell's case, it is doubtful whether he has attained this essential requisite for writing a book which pretends to be a psychological analysis of the people of the Far East.

The author's attempt in writing this book is a hard but very interesting one. He undertakes to reveal to the readers what he regards to be the Soul of the Far East. What then is the Soul of the Far East? According to him, "the Soul of the Far East may be said to be Impersonality." (p. 15). That is to say, the Far Orientals have no idea of personality; they have not yet attained to the full consciousness of individuality. In short, "they are still in that childish state of development, before self-consciousness has spoiled the sweet simplicity of nature. An impersonal race seems never to have fully grown up." (p. 25). This naïve state of existence, Mr. Lowell believes is clearly shown in the family life, the language, the art, and the religion of the Orientals; and he proceeds to prove the validity of his thesis by citing the social customs and the religious ideas of the people.

It is not the object of this brief comment to scrutinize every example cited in the book, for there is neither space nor time to do so. Nor do I care to deny absolutely the statement that the idea of personality is somewhat less prominent in the Japanese character, than in the American. No candid mind can deny it, but this concession is something very different from Mr. Lowell's conclusion. It is beyond doubt, that his interpretation of those facts which he mentions is fanciful and unreal in the extreme. His inference, in many cases, is totally groundless, and entirely unjustifiable. He reads his own ideas into those facts, and draws out undreamed of inferences from them. Leaving then, all the details aside, I will simply mention a few points in which the book is defective.

The first point which I would like to note is that Mr. Lowell does not sufficiently recognize the class distinction which is a characteristic feature of the Far East, carrying with it a great difference in the manners and customs among the several