system of belief which is held by at least nine-tenths of those who profess Christianity, and is embodied in the Creeds, including man's spiritual existence, his immortality, resurrection, and future judgment. The Dogmatic Theology contemplated by Dr. Drysdale appears to be something altogether different from this. It is a theology which admits that "the principle of immortality, whatever be its nature, is distinct from the mind, but what that is, and how the connection, identity, and responsibility of the future with the present individual is to be maintained,"* it cannot tell us. It asserts that the "language of Scripture is compatible with scientific materialism in as far as it holds the life and mind to be functions of a perishable organism."+ The only glimpse of immortality which it affords is the "presumption " of "a being possessing conscious mind and personality and power, whose substance is non-material," which may represent "possibly man soon after death, if there is any distinction between that state and the 'spiritual body' of the resurrection, which is a point left doubtful."

The ordinary Christian Theology delights in the contemplation of God as the supreme arbiter in human affairs, but according to Dr. Drysdale "the thought of the continual presence of God is, in the small affairs of life, too heavy for man to bear, and troubles his intellect, even in special scientific investigations." §

If this were all that is included in a system of Christian Theology, it would hardly be worth an elaborate essay in its defence. Judgment might well be allowed to go in default.

I come, therefore, to the conclusion that the attempt to reconcile Scientific Materialism with Dogmatic Theology,

* Address p. 58. Address, p. 58. Address, p. 59. § Address, p. 63.

or, as I would rather put it, with the declarations of Scripture, is an utter failure.

In some of Dr. Drysdale's concluding observations I heartily concur. He says, "The methods of scientific investigation, directed as they are to the tracing of all phenomena to antecedent causes which are themselves phenomena, are essentially sceptical, and exclude thoughts of First Causes." Besides, the field of science is

now so enormous, that a man must not only give himself up wholly to it, but even to a very small part of it, in order to make a new conquest for the domain of knowledge. Hence, even an incapacity to judge of religious truths."* Further, "There are also the moral causes of disturbance to be taken into account; for envy, jealousy, hatred, and prejudice are as rife among men of science as among other men, and these dim the pure love of truth, which is the essential condition of all discovery in science." When we hear an accomplished scientist state publicly that "the domain of theology is an ocean of mud, which the more it is stirred, the fouler it becomes," we may form a pretty accurate idea of his capacity for forming an impartial judgment. The best reply is that of the woman of Samaria-"Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep."

The spirit and tone of Dr. Drysdale's monograph are admirable; calm, judicious, and impartial, with an evident desire to serve the cause of religion and truth. It must be of service in calling attention to the points at issue between the advanced school of Evolutionists and the believers in revealed religion, and although its proposed mode of reconciliation has failed, its author deserves our warmest thanks for his well-meant endeavour.

As to the final result, one thing, at least, is certain, * Address, p. 68.

derived from our own experience. Whatever may be the teachings of Material Science, we feel that we are responsible beings, amenable to moral laws, as fixed in their principles, as certain in their sequences, as any of the physical laws to which matter is subject. We feel that we have the power of volition, of choice, of obedience or disobedience to the innate dictates of conscience, and we have a conviction, not to be shaken off, that " every transgression and disobedience shall receive its just recompense of reward." In the midst of this darkness and perplexity, we hear a gentle voice exclaiming, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Here is the solution of all our doubts, and the realisation of all our hopes.

Strong Son of God, immortal love,

Whom we, that have not seen Thy face,

By faith and faith alone embrace,
Believing where we cannot prove.

Our little systems have their day,

They have their day and cease to be;
They are but broken lights of Thee,

And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.

THE CREDIBILITY OF VENERABLE BEDE, SAINT AND CONFESSOR, AND OF HIS FOLLOWERS.

BY JOSEPH BOULT.

It is possible for a very good man to be a very bad historian; for, however excellent may be the man, he may not possess the information, the critical faculty, or the freedom from bias which are all desirable in the compiler of history.

That Bede intended to make his work a veritable history appears from the care with which, on his own showing, he collected the materials; but, unfortunately, he appears to have accepted as equally authentic all the information presented to him, from whatever source. Consequently, the composition, as a whole, is crude, ill-digested, and inconsistent in itself, and with the authentic information modern research has rescued from oblivion.

As Bede proposed to write an Ecclesiastical History of England, the references to secular matters are chiefly incidental. Beginning with a geographical description of the whole island, Bede presents one generally received in that day, without any, the most obvious, correction. For example, he represents the day in winter as being of only six hours. Speaking of Ireland, he says almost all things there are good against poison; and mentions, as of his own knowledge, that when persons have been bitten by serpents, "the scrapings of leaves of books that were brought out of Ireland being put into water and given them to drink, have immediately expelled the spreading poison, and assuaged the swelling." (Book I., c. 1.)

Passing over the abstract of events from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to the departure of the Romans, with all its

discrepancies, and taking Bede's account of the incidents which accompanied that departure, we find that he repeats from Gildas, and almost in the same words, the legends which had been invented to explain the remains of Hadrian's Wall and those of Antonine's.

The first succour sent by the Romans to relieve the Britanni from the Scots and Picts, after delivering them from their cruel oppressors, is said to have advised them to build a wall between the Friths of Forth and Clyde. The islanders raised the wall of sods, and not of stone, as they had not men capable of working in that material, notwithstanding four centuries of Roman sway. Bede says, that being of sods it was of no use, and that their former enemies broke into the borders, trampled and overrun all places, and bore down all before them. Yet the rampart was really built by the Romans under Antonine.

Then the Romans, coming again to the relief of the islanders, built a strong stone wall from sea to sea, in a straight line between the towns which had been built there for fear of the enemy, and not far from the trench of Severus. (Book I., c. 12.) This stone wall and the trench appear, from the researches of Mr. Bruce, to be the murus and vallum of Hadrian. It is clear that as there was not any authentic record or tradition of the works of Antonine and Hadrian, their remains were accepted as evidence of the despairing efforts of the forsaken islanders, the clerical author of the legend and his copyers not being aware that earthen ramparts have rendered effective service, even when made of sods. The timorous guard on the wall, who pined aawy day and night in the utmost fear, and were dragged off with hooked weapons and dashed against the ground, are, no doubt, equally legendary. It is inconceivable that the Romans should not have settled some of their veterans in such a neighbourhood; and that they and their Britannic neighbours should not have re