the word "deep" as signifying the indefinite expansion in space of the primordial gaseous fluid? This word (tehom) also has a well-fixed and definite meaning. It means a mass of raging waters." It occurs more than a score of times in the Old Testament. The "deep" which closed Jonah round about was surely not an indefinite expanse of gaseous fluid (Jon. ii. 5). When, after the deluge of Noah, the fountains of the "deep" were stopped (Gen. viii. 2), we are not to understand that the supply of such gaseous fluid was diminished or restricted. We have been previously told (vii. 11) that part of this deluge resulted from breaking up the fountains of the "deep"; surely the "deep" is not here a primitive gaseous fluid of indefinite expanse.

It is not necessary to follow into their details the working of the scheme of the lamented and devout author of this volume, in order to see that the reconciliation which it proposes between Genesis and geology is obtained at the price of a fair and scientific exegesis. All interpretations which depend upon reading the cosmogonic ideas of modern science into the ancient inspired record can have only the same doubtful success. In fact, not one

of the really difficult points in the reconciliation of the narrative of Genesis i.-ii. 3, and geologic science can be said to be cleared up by the scheme of Professor Guyot. The brief space of six days for the entire period of creation, the production of all kinds of plant life before the existence of sunlight, the separation of plant life from animal life, the creation of the heavenly bodies only on the fourth day,-all these difficult points remain, as before, unreconciled. The apparent agreement of the Biblical narrative even with the geologic scheme of the author is purchased, at every one of these points, by setting aside the claims of hermeneutical science.

No matter, therefore, how high our regard may be for the pious intent, the scientific attainments, and the fair, charitable spirit of the author, fidelity to the cause of Biblical interpretation requires the conclusion that his attempt is a failure. And every similar attempt must end in failure. If the science of geology is ready to admit that its main positions with respect to the order and periods of creation are only tentative and hypothetical, then it can perhaps offer us some hope of accomplishing, by waiting, a final reconciliation of Genesis and geology. For the main positions of scientific exegesis in the interpretation of the Biblical narrative are now no longer tentative and hypothetical. Unless exegetes

" at all hazards,

give themselves up to the license of "reconciling they are able to say with sufficient certainty what this narrative means. If, then, a fair reconciliation is ever to be effected, the science of geology must confess that it has made many important mistakes with respect to the periods and order of creation. In the meantime we insist upon the truth of the declaration of Professor Guyot with respect to the main intent of the Bible. Its chief design is "to give us light upon the great truths needed for our spiritual life. . . Its teachings are essentially of a spir itual, religious character." Because we thus believe, we warn the readers of this noble little volume not to be turned away from their confidence in the Bible by the failure of its conclusions in the attempt at reconciliation. For in this way the work of its devout author would sadly miss of its admirable intention. Its readers should not refuse to listen to the one exhortation (p. 6), which is the wisest thing in the book: "Let us not, therefore, hope, much less ask, from science the knowledge it can never give; nor seek from the Bible the science which it does not intend to teach."

CURRENT DISCUSSIONS IN THEOLOGY.*-The purpose of this volume is to give an intelligible account of current theological discussions in this and other countries during the present year. It is the second volume of a series, the first of which appeared last year. At the same time, we are not to be left in ignorance of the views of the writers concerning the topics discussed. It is evidently their desire that the influence of the Seminary they represent shall be felt in critical efforts to correct false views and to point the way to what the writers suppose to be the true views. Prof. Curtiss discusses somewhat elaborately questions relating to the history of Israel. He deals with particular classes of opinion upon questions involved in this general theme, chiefly German opinions of course, and cites from works with which Americans are supposed to be relatively unfamiliar. He deals critically with their views, and upon many points gives us his own opinions, which, as always, are characterized by a certain caution, if not breadth and thoroughness, and insight and fidelity to facts. Prof. Hyde contents himself with a brief statement of the contents of the more important recent works in the different departments of New Testament study, and is less concerned to record his own * Current Discussions in Theology. By the Professors of Chicago Theological Seminary. Chicago: Fleming H. Revell. 1884.

critical opinions. Prof. Scott, who fills the chair of Ecclesiastical History, has given us a valuable statement of the position of the chief theological parties in Germany, in our time, and intimates the importance, to the intelligent study of the history of Christian doctrine, of some knowledge of these parties. Prof. Fisk, without much reference, critical or otherwise, to late important works in the deparment of Homiletics, gives us his own views of current preaching, what it is and what it ought to be, and leaves behind the savor of his lecture room. Prof. Wilcox treats of Practical Theology, defining its nature and scope, and indicating its present work in several particulars in our own country. The most significant part of the volume, however, because proceeding from the chair of Dogmatics, is from the hand of Prof. Boardman. It may be supposed to be significant not only of his own theological attitude, but of the attitude of the Seminary, toward current theological questions. If we may judge from the spirit of the present discussion, it is certainly the attitude of a genuinely candid man. Prof. Boardman deals with only two topics, Theism and Revelation. He refers to several late works on Theism, but chiefly to the work of Prof. Harris, "The Philosophical Basis of Theism." He criticises the author's views of the Absolute, and succeeds, if in nothing else, in demonstrating the difference in the philosophical training of the two men and the difficulty in grasping ideas and estimating arguments without a clear understanding of the meaning of philosophical terms. The larger part of this portion of the volume is devoted to Revelation. Prof. Boardman here reviews and criticises Prof. Ladd's late work, "The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture." The outline of the main positions taken in this work is for the most part accurate, and bears the marks of admirable candor and of more than ordinary capacity to understand another's point of view and to state his position. In this respect it is in striking contrast with many of the recent statements by theological journals, and particularly by religious newspapers, concerning the character and scope of this important work. The writer has, however, unintentionally misstated the position of the author with respect to miracles. It is stated as Prof. Ladd's position that "even a miracle is to be believed only on the ground of its ethical value as a work of God." This statement does not cover the ground. The credibility of the alleged miracle is, ac cording to Prof. Ladd, not determined solely by its ethical worth but rather by its ethico-religious worth and by its relation with

the history of redemption. Nor is it true, as Prof. Boardman states, that, according to the author, it is the moral consciousness alone that tests and determines the true doctrine of inspiration. The Christian consciousness, or that ultimate knowledge which is the gift of the Spirit of Christ, is surely something more and other than a moral consciousness. After a statement of the author's views, in the main, despite the above exceptions, so appreciative and so correct, it is the more surprising that Prof. Boardman should develope the singular line of criticism that follows, and should think himself able to discover difficulties connected with the author's views which to us are simply impossible and even inconceivable. These difficulties are of his own invention. They are not at all involved in the positions which he has so well stated. Has he after all failed to grasp the central and regulative positions of the work, and is there only the semblance of a real appre hension of its character and scope? Or is it that, after having passed over into the current of the author's thought and moved on with him to the end, he returns to his own point of view and finds himself so trapped and imprisoned by his own prepossessions and methods of thinking that he unwittingly perverts, as by a mental necessity, the very views he has so faithfully and candidly stated? We will accept the latter as the true explanation. There is a wide difference between the starting-points of the two men. It is the difference between two irreconcilable views of the supernatural and its relation to history. It is the difference, not so much between two conflicting views of religion, as between two conflicting views of revelation. It is the difference between a semi-rationalistic and a semi-deistic theology on the one hand and a historic and Christian theology on the other hand, a theology that has for its point of view the whole scope of the divine rev elation as disclosed by historic redemption. It is in the necessity of his position that Prof. Boardman should emphasize and honor natural theology so-called. But it involves him in a mischievously rationalistic position. It is in the necessity of his position that Prof. Ladd should emphasize and honor revelation. It puts him in the Christian point of view and gives him a clear outlook upon the whole of human history and upon prehistoric and historic redemption. It makes redemption the key-fact of revelation and history. It exalts Christ into centrality, where the Scriptures put him. That any man should deny or question the christo-centric point of revelation, of history, or of theology, shows what poor

head Biblical religion may make against a semi-rationalistic theology which is philosophically untenable. It shows what poor use a Christian teacher may make of the Book which he professes to recognize as the infallibly inspired and final appeal in all his theological opinions.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNKNOWABLE.*—This book is designed to separate Mr. Spencer's doctrine of the Unknowable from his general system of evolution, and to refute the former while leaving the latter to stand as "a law of things" and not "only a law of appearances." Its author sums up his conclusions in about the following terms (p. 211 f.): Every argument that is used, or that can be used, in proof of the existence of the objective Unknowable is based on the very knowledge which the argument purports to prove impossible (Chap. II.). A number of problems which Mr. Spencer supposes peculiar to Ontology and considers insoluble, the author finds to be capable of solution by Phenomenology (Chaps. III.-VI.). Actual nature does not exclude realities from its sphere (Chap. VII.). The unknowableness deduced by Mr. Spencer is the unknowableness of something neither in existence nor capable of existence (Chap. VIII.). Spencer's deduction of the unknowableness of things outside of consciousness from the conception of life, Mr. Lacy considers meaningless and erroneous (Chap. IX.). Absolute knowledge is possible and can be accounted for (Chapter X.). The author justly declares that Spencer's "reconciliation" is a "high" (he might have said a pompous and meaningless) abstraction; but he himself believes that "Science and the Religion of to-day shall pass into something more worthy than either, which shall take their place" (p. 235).

Mr. Lacy has studied this doctrine of Spencer with painstaking care, and his refutations of its details are tolerably successful in consideration of the fact that he so largely looks upon metaphysical problems in Spencer's way, and almost-it might be saidwith borrowed eyes. The "Synthetic Philosophy" he considers "as perhaps the noblest speculative product of a single mind" (p. 4). Yet he does not hesitate to criticise it with commendable thoroughness. This estimate of the "Synthetic Philosophy," in

* An Examination of the Philosophy of the Unknowable as Expounded by Herbert Spencer. By WILLIAM M. LACY. Philadelphia: Benjamin F. Lacy, 121 Seventh

St. 1883.