quarter of million of dollars for the treasury. And does anybody doubt that as many as five hundred could be persuaded to do so? Probably two hundred and fifty would give a thousand apiece, and there is another quarter of million of dollars. A considerable number would go a good way beyond that. It is not absurd to predict that if this movement were properly worked the Alumni Fund could be carried to one million of dollars in five years. That is only two hundred dollars in each alumnus-less than fifty dollars annually. Is it preposterous to imagine that for such a short period one hundred dollars each from the five thousand might be realized? That would result in $2,500,000. But this can be done only by definite system and effort. Somebody must work at it.

But the money thus gained is not all. It is the conscious alliance of the alumni as a body. They would find themselves committed to their university in all places and at all times. They would more unitedly send their sons here. The fund so established would constitute a basis for further action. Bye and bye, when the younger alumni of to-day shall have come to years of influence and fortune, a similar thing might be attempted again and the same fund more than doubled. So it might grow from time to time. More than this, the alumni being enlisted, wealthy patrons, fathers of the younger men just out of college or still in it, might readily be engaged in an effort to meet present necessities, while the current of public feeling, so far as duty to other institutions would allow, would draw into the college treasury money from those who have no such personal interests as have the patrons. Thus the alumni become a powerful influence when consolidated by effort. Not only gifts are secured by such movements in which so large an element is concerned, but bequests from unexpected quarters.

Yale is thus spoken of because near at hand and having a large constituency, which it is impossible to believe, if properly appealed to, would allow the momentum of her career to be retarded for want of funds. Other institutions, larger or smaller, will find similar concentrated and sustained efforts correspondingly remunerative. The one thing to be emphasized, details aside, is the necessity of organized and sustained effort to obtain funds. It is not wise to mourn over the indifference

of rich men, if there is not efficiency to ask them for money, adequately and continually.

The sum of the case is that it is the duty of men of wealth to furnish funds for universities. It is also the duty of the colleges to make that duty very clear to them.

It is not easy to picture to ourselves the noble spectacle of wealth in hearty alliance with learning. Wealth would receive unprecedented exaltation among men. It would be lifted out of the mire of materialism; no longer the slave of mammon, but rid of its animalism; no longer the ally of iniquity but of righteousness, it would seem sanctified and transfigured. When men shall use wealth more largely for the benefit of their fellows, its acquisition will no longer be looked upon as sordid, but an exercise of noble self-sacrifice for high ends. It used to be said that a man could not die respectably in Boston without leaving a bequest to Harvard. Unfortunately there was a sneer in the remark, and more unfortunately it was not true. But the time will come, and apparently soon, when for a man to amass a fortune through the agencies of civilized society, and give no part of it for the public good, will be accounted disgraceful. Then doubtless more of Boston's wealth will flow towards Harvard, and her citizens will begin to pay in part for the benefits, for the distinction their city has attained throughout the nation, because of the proximity and cultured influence of the noble university, which was founded contemporaneously with the commonwealth.

The testimony of wealth liberally sacrificed to learning will impress the public with the supreme worth of education. The institutions will be thronged, as they are not yet. Every higher force in society will be invigorated. The boundaries of knowl edge will be extended, and human life will move on in a purer and brighter atmosphere.

S. H. LEE.

ARTICLE II.-STRONG'S PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION.

Philosophy and Religion, a series of Addresses, Essays, and Sermons designed to set forth great truths in popular form. By AUGUSTUS HOPKINS STRONG, D.D., President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological Seminary. A. C. Armstrong & Son, New York. pp. 632.

THIS book is designed to be a companion-volume to the author's Systematic Theology which appeared less than two years ago. It is in some sense the popular counterpart of the more technical and scientific "System." As the title imports the contents of this volume had been in the main presented as public addresses, either as sermons or as discourses or lectures for special occasions. The title "Philosophy and Religion" is used as a general caption which is large enough to embrace the varied contents. The author has gathered together from the Reviews and from his repertoire of sermons and addresses a mass of materials produced during the past twenty years. A larger part of the book is given to Religion than is accorded to Philosophy. The latter term would, however, embrace some of the most interesting and elaborate chapters, as, for example, those entitled: "Philosophy and Religion," "Science and Religion," "Modern Idealism," and "Scientific Theism."

The author announces in the preface that "the book is printed by way of testimony." He disclaims any "expectation that the book will be widely read," and adds that he is not "aware that any friends desire to read what he has written." "If any choose to read, well, etc. But if none choose to read, it is also well, the author, at least, has delivered his soul." This might seem to some an ungracious introduction, suggesting the idea that the dominant motive of the book was rather the putting of the author on record than convincing and helping the reader. However this may be, the attentive and pre

pared reader will find that the book will serve to put him into relation with a wide range of vigorous and helpful thought upon many of the most difficult problems and highest interests

of life.

The book is so diversified in its contents that our brief notice must limit itself to a small part of the work. We select the sermon on the "Holiness of God" which well represents Dr. Strong's theological standpoint and mode of argument, as it is also representative in its bearings upon the relations of Philosophy and Religion.

The purpose of the sermon is to define the relation of holi ness to the divine essence and to the other attributes of God. "The attributes are qualities without which God would not be God." Holiness is one of these attributes; love is another. The author then distinguishes between the active and the passive sides of the attributes, and states that "the consideration of the passive side must come first,-the thought of the attribute as quality must come before the thought of the attribute as power." Dr. Strong defines holiness as purity, not “passive purity," but "purity unsleeping-the most tremendous energy in the universe eternally and unchangeably exerting itself "— "purity in conscious and determined movement." Holiness is therefore "the self-preservative quality of God." "Holiness in God is purity willing, affirming, asserting, maintaining itself; it is the self-affirming purity of the divine nature."

The next inquiry is: What is the relation of holiness to the other attributes of God's being? Its relation to justice is first discussed. "Justice is simply transitive holiness, or holiness exercised toward creatures." In principle, therefore, holiness and justice are identical, the latter being a term for the holiness of God as exercised toward His creatures. Justice is "legislative" and "executive" holiness, and becomes "retributive" upon occasion of sin in the creature.

The next point is the relation of holiness to love. Dr. Strong uses the term love as synonymous with benevolence. Love is the self-communicating impulse which exists eternally in God. "From eternity God was love, because from eternity there was the communication of all his fulness to the Son." The relation of holiness to love is important, but very different

from the relation of holiness to justice. Holiness and justice are essentially one; not so holiness and love. "Love cannot be resolved into holiness." "Nor, on the other hand, can we resolve holiness into love. Holiness is the fundamental and determining attribute of God, and it must utter itself in selfpreserving purity and in retribution against sin. Justice, therefore, must be exercised; benevolence or love-the selfimparting impulse of God-may be exercised or not." "Justice is something invariable; it comes equally to all, love varies with the sovereign pleasure of the bestower." "That which is highest in us is highest also in God. As we may be kind, but must be righteous, so God, in whose image we are made, may be merciful, but must be holy. Mercy is optional with him." "Love is an attribute which, like omnipotence, God may exercise or not exercise, as he will. But with holiness it is not so. Holiness must be exercised everywhere." After the elaboration of this view of the relation of holiness to love, the problem naturally arises: Are not holiness and love in conflict? Is there not a duality of principles in the nature of God? "Ah! there would be," says the author, "but for one fact-the fact of the cross. The first and worst tendency of sin is its tendency to bring discord into the being of God, by setting holiness at war with love, and love at war with holiness. And since both these attributes are exercised toward sinners of the human race, the otherwise inevitable antagonism between them is removed only by the death of the God-man."

The author here explains that this conflict of opposing principles in God never actually takes place, because the atonement. already exists in the counsels of God from eternity and thus God reconciles Himself to Himself and the "opposing claims" of these two fundamentally antagonistic principles are prevented from impairing the divine blessedness.

Having now denied the existence of any essential relation between holiness and love, and even made them inherently antagonistic principles which would have made "war" in the being of God but for the atonement, the author attempts to rescue love from its banishment to make it serve the purposes of his final appeal. "Let us not imagine," he says, "that love