says must be decided before all others. Most assuredly, in the present crisis, those who wish to vindicate ethics must resent the attempt to hamper their efforts by demanding of them a choice between two such vague theories as a preliminary condition of their considering the problem at all.

tue.

Evolution has been rendered too probable an hypothesis to identify it exclusively with materialism, and the latter theory too much of a bugbear to condition ethical questions upon the issue of speculation in regard to the more general problem. It may be that a correct solution of ethical problems will clarify perceptions for more easy and more satisfactory views regarding the others. This thought seems never to have occurred to Mr. Lilly; and while we would not urge it as evident to students of philosophy generally, we are confident that, if thinking men observed human nature closely, they would quite uniformly discover that mankind's theories of philosophy depend more upon their moral convictions than their character depends upon their philosophy. Indeed, is not a system of philosophy actually produced for the purpose of explaining the facts whose existence and value are already admitted instead of proving them? This fact is constantly forgotten by such writers as Mr. Lilly, who raise a cry of alarm when a worn-out theory begins to crumble, as if the desertion of it was not an act of prudence and even of virVery many of the author's criticisms are obvious and just. His own moral sympathies and insight are admirable. There are dangers to moral life from the influence of the doctrines whose dissemination he deplores. Evolution, although it does explain many phenomena more successfully than theories which it supplants, does no more than assign the efficient causes producing them. It furnishes no principle from which moral ideals can be deduced, except what it borrows without acknowledgment from its critics. The survival of the fittest or the right of the strong explains much, but it legislates for nothing. Indeed, what progress the race has made in morals is determined by the limits which have been assigned to the operation of that law. The recognized rights of the weak are a protest against the application of force for any other purpose than that of making right effective against the alliance of power with wrong. But nothing is gained by discussing the doctrine in a tone which impresses ordinary minds with the necessity of opposing it tooth and nail. It only encourages obstinacy in a hopeless cause, and prepares the general mind to accept the inconsequences of it when it finds its position no longer tenable. What is needed is such an analysis of the problem as will enable the moralist to make a present of evolution to its advocates, and still assert that the main question has not been touched. Mr. Lilly's presentation would not support such a hope for a moment. His tone is a perfectly uncompromising one, which is all very well enough when one is not dealing with a question having two sides, or embodying two distinct principles. But he defeats his own purpose when

he invokes antagonism to a theory whose main features cannot any longer be disputed, because the confidence in science is so strong as often to preempt everything in its favor when a dispute is raised between it and traditional views. The present condition of most philosophic and moral questions requires judicious concessions rather than the use of controversial methods of the last century. But no such a spirit pervades the work under notice. If any concession is made at all, it is done grudgingly;

and hence the scientific mind, which might be redeemed from the conclusion it is hesitating to adopt, is encouraged to solve all its doubts in favor of science by not finding a resource for reconciliation between two positions assumed to conflict. Philosophers who have already solved the problem will enjoy the discussion of Mr. Lilly for its trenchant, vigorous debating, and for the clearness of his insight into the drift of things. But they will at the same time know how to make allowance for the language which would restrict their choice of view to the two very suspicious alternatives, and so save their own feelings by not having to accept any disagreeable consequences with the truth which facts urge upon them. This will not be the case with the laity for whom the work is written. They have not the time or the power to make the distinctions necessary to avoid fallacious reasoning, and so will have their allegiance determined solely by the prepossessions with which they come to the study of moral problems. The enmity between evolution and moral ideas is represented as irreconcilable. Hence, if the reader comes to the question with any predisposed reverence for evolution and science, he will naturally give up the morals said to conflict with that view. On the other hand, if he comes to it with resolute convictions about morals, he will most probably array himself against evolution as something to be gotten rid of before true moral belief is possible. But there is as much danger in either of these mental attitudes as in anything Mr. Lilly has to complain of; and it is a misfortune that his work will appeal only to a narrow class of minds, although we accord it many scholarly qualities, and a moral earnestness worthy of a better cause.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK.

J. H. Hyslop.

E. Plon, Nourrit et

JESUS CHRIST, par LE PERE DIDON. Librairie Plon. Cie, Imprimeurs-Éditeurs, 10 Rue Garancière, Paris. Some five years since, the Lenten Sermons at the Cathedral of Notre Dame were delivered by a Dominican whose fire and evangelical fervor drew large audiences. But his preaching was too ethical and too little ecclesiastical to satisfy the authorities, and suddenly he disappeared from the city, having rétired to a convent. There he spent two years, and then was permitted to travel for a year in Palestine. The result of his meditation and journeyings has recently appeared in a two-volume "Life of Jesus Christ," which has created more stir in France than any work on that subject since Renan published his "Vie de Jésus." Not only have the theological and literary reviews given it extended notice, but even many of the prominent dailies have offered their criticism. It has come immediately to be regarded as the Catholic interpretation of the life of Christ. Nor without reason, for on the title-page is found the statement that the work has been carefully examined by order of the Master General of the Dominican Friars, and the result stated is that "not only all the dogmatic portion of this book conforms with the teachings of Theology, but the history portion in its turn is nobly included and presented. . . . For these reasons we think the present book worthy of being published." The Pope has likewise approved it. So it comes

to us as no Protestant work could come.

In its form there are many signs that the church is aware of the modern way of regarding Christ, and is even willing to aid thereto. It

is no longer the halo-crowned Christ, stiff and passionless. but the living Redeemer, who suffered and was tempted in all points like as we are. The spirit of the work in its freshness reminds us even of Renan, though the suggestion would doubtless shock the faithful, and we note that the great critic's name is not once mentioned. The style is lucid and often rhetorical. One reads it like a romance, and finds a delicacy and sympathy which Renan certainly does not always show. Père Didon, though largely devoting himself to the representation of the man Jesus Christ, does not forget that it is his Lord, and is always reverent.

Its

Here, perhaps, lies the chief value of the book. It is devotional rather than critical. One recognizes constantly the pen of the orator. opening is especially impressive.

"Jesus Christ is the great name of history. There are others for whom men have been ready to die. There is none other who has received the worship of all ages, all climes, all nations. His name is known throughout the world. Among the savages, among the most degenerate of mankind, his apostles undaunted bear the tidings of his death upon the cross and of salvation free to all who love him. Even modern skeptics acknowledge that no other has done so much for the poor and miserable." The closing apostrophe though brief is equally striking. "Heaven is opened. The reign of God is begun. The triumph of Jesus commences. He only leaves the earth to free it from evil, and to save it. He has overcome the world."

We notice a great abundance of Scriptural quotations, not simply verses, but entire passages being often given. This is doubtless more needed in a Catholic work, and as some comment is always added the proper interpretation is supplied.

The theology of the book is of course sound. The basis of sin, however, he regards to be ignorance. "Man does not know and does not

see; it is generally for that reason that his heart is bad."

Of the atonement he says (vol. ii., p. 344), "He had touched the bottom of that terrible abyss where the will of his father had precipitated him. He had suffered everything and expiated everything. The suffering was without limit, the victim perfect, the satisfaction infinite. The wrath of God against evil was appeased; sin destroyed; the reconciliation between man and God sealed in him in a love without bounds."

From the standpoint of historical criticism the work is certainly peculiar. It was announced at one time that Père Didon had gone to Germany to examine the latest results of German criticism, but in the body of the book not a single modern critic is mentioned. Among the notes at the end the name of Tholuck appears in a long list of ancient authorities, and Reuss is once cited. But we suspect that even the presence of these acknowledgments may have been an oversight of the examining committee, otherwise the work might have been dated two hundred years ago. In the Introduction he says truly enough that "in its most general sense criticism is the exercise of the rational faculty; criticism and judgment are synonymous terms; for judgment like criticism has for its object to distinguish between the true and the false. It is the first of the rights and the most necessary of the duties of reason." "Criticism cannot be a special science; it is rather a condition of all science." when he goes on to say that the documents on which Scriptural history is founded are "not public property but the inalienable heritage of the church," we have a statement which more truly suggests the real critical

But

or uncritical character of his work. We are then not surprised to find him trying to show that Matthew furnishes the natural and Luke the legal genealogy of Joseph, both being without error, or that he maintains the genuineness of the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery. His unscientific spirit further appears in some strained and arbitrary interpretations. When Jesus says to his mother, "Behold thy son,' he creates in her a divine maternity, he associates her with the work of redemption." Again, the water and blood issuing from the side of Jesus are asserted to be types of the water of Baptism and blood of the Eucharist. Critically, therefore, the work of Père Didon contributes little if anything to our knowledge. But devotionally there is much of profit. Henceforth the faithful, as the "Figaro" said, will have their Renan. From the Catholic standpoint it is almost above criticism, and we can only rejoice that a work conceived in such an excellent spirit and executed with such undoubted merit will be placed in their hands. James B. Reynolds.

PARIS, FRANCE.

AIDS TO SCRIPTURE STUDY. BY FREDERIC GARDINER. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

The writings of the late Dr. Gardiner illustrate an interesting stage in the progress of Biblical science. He was a man who felt the influence of modern criticism and, in a measure, responded to it; but he was, at the same time, a man of a conservative spirit, and gently but firmly dogmatic. His "Harmony of the Gospels" shows, in a striking way, the combination of these two qualities. It is a radical book in its fearless division and distribution of the material of the Gospels, but an intensely conservative book in its notes and introductions.

These characteristics appear in the posthumous book whose title is given above. There is a clear recognition of the fact that the Bible bears the marks of the human limitations of its writers. "That the Scriptures have in them something which is human is proved by the fact that both the Old and the New Testaments, as we have them, do contain undeniable errors." (Page 3.) This he illustrates by specific cases, and concludes, " They [the cases cited] prove that there are errors in the Bible, and make simply impossible the extreme theory of verbal inspiration, at least as far as the actual Scriptures in our possession are concerned." (Page 5.) Moral imperfections in the legislation of the Old Testament are also recognized (page 45), and in the actions and views of those who act or write under the influence of inspiration. (Pages 54-56.) But rigid limits are fixed for these concessions, and the conclusions which would seem inevitable are carefully avoided. They [the errors of the Scriptures] are due not to the human imperfection of the writers, but to that of the readers; they are simply the necessary limitation of revelation in making itself intelligible to those to whom it was given. They are consistent, therefore, with the view that all the teaching of the Scriptures is controlled by infinite knowledge, and that the human writers have been so limited as to prevent their introducing into them the errors of their own private notions." (Page 21.)

66

The intention in this paragraph, and in several others like it, does not seem to be to deny that Biblical writers were ignorant concerning the subjects upon which they make misstatements, but simply to deny that

"These

their ignorance had anything to do with their misstatements. errors [are referred] to the Omniscient Source of the Scriptures." (Page 23.) Of course, this conclusion is founded upon purely dogmatic grounds. Is it a more rational dogma than the supposition which he rejects, that "whatever is imperfect and erroneous belongs to the writers, and gives evidence that the human element has not been so limited as to prevent the introduction of error"?

The sad constraint of such a dogma is seen when it sets a gentle Christian like Dr. Gardiner to the defense of such an act as Jael's cruel and treacherous murder of Sisera, and Deborah's commendation of it. (Pages 54-56.)

The theory is that "the interpreter must accept all Scripture as given by inspiration of God, allowing only for the coloring of the various human writers and for unavoidable error in the transmission of their writings." (Page 63.)

It is from this point of view that he can say, "An intelligent exegesis, seeking harmony, will always find it without strain" (page 31), for, as he adds on a later page, "it is notorious that every one who goes to the Scriptures with a preconceived view or system in his mind, is sure to find that view confirmed." (Page 155.)

ANDOVER.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

William H. Ryder.

By JOHN MONRO GIBSON, M. A., D. D. THE GOSPEL According to ST. LUKE. By the Rev. HENRY BURTON, M. A. New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son.

These are two volumes added to what have already appeared of the American reprint of the Expositor's Bible. They consist of a series of homilies upon the two Gospels of which they treat. They are good religious reading, and at the same time they render a certain service in popularizing the results of careful exegetical work. Neither of these volumes professes to treat of the more fundamental questions concerning the origin of the Gospels and their relations with one another. It is, perhaps, almost inevitable that each should make the impression that the Gospel of which it treats gives a report of the events in our Lord's life which is nearly complete and substantially correct in its chronological arrangement.

The best chapter in Dr. Gibson's book is that upon the Temptation; the chapter which gives the least satisfaction is that upon the Prophecy on the Mount. Perhaps the effect of the book would have been improved by a little more restraint in criticisms upon those who differ from the author. Those who question the repetition of similar events in the Gospel history are spoken of as "those who cavil." (Page 212.) One who interprets the term "the Son of the living God" in Matthew xvi. in a certain way is one who "professing honestly to interpret this passage surely must be willfully blind." (Page 222.) These views are held by honest and reverent men who may be won to other views by sound argument, but who are pained but not convinced by such hard words.

The most striking feature of Mr. Burton's exposition of Luke is its rhetorical style, which is certainly impressive. The most commonplace features of the Gospel mark the starting-points of elaborate rhetorical periods. For example, on page 16 the absence of definite dates is noted, which leads to the following rhapsody: