have unhesitatingly submitted all the teachings, theological, moral, and canonical, of my pamphlet, impels me to follow without doubt or question every opinion found in those authors whom Rome has consecrated by her august sanction. But how different, how unlike me, is that naughty Reviewer! He may not be, and I charitably hold he is not, a Turk exactly, or a Freethinker, but I must doubt his orthodoxy. He has no respect for the Craissons and others, whom the Pope has honored with his commendatory letters. In despising them, he despises and insults the Pope and his counsellors."

This is no play of imagination, but it is distinctly stated that the Reviewer has insulted Mgr. Roncetti and Professor Angelis by finding fault with Craisson's book, which they examined. These are not Dr. Smith's own words, but expressions of an anonymous "reverend friend," writing to Dr. Smith, who indorses the language by giving it a place in his pamphlet. By the way, the reverend author should not have been allowed to allege anonymous authority so freely in his pamphlet. We are treated to long extracts from great theologians, distinguished canonists, learned friends, all anonymous, not one of them having either name or habitat. Such testimony is worthless and must be ruled out of court. He ought to have remembered, and his friendly advisers or fellowlaborers ought to have reminded him, that a writer who cannot or will not quote fairly or honestly what is in print before the eyes of all, has debarred himself in logic and law alike from the right to appeal to written testimony, which no one but himself has seen or read.

To come back to our point, the reverend author of the pamphlet knows very well what is the just value of most letters of approbation, whether emanating from censors in Rome or in America, or from bishops or even the Pope. Had he sent a copy of his own "Elements," to the Holy Father, accompanied by a letter of filial devotion, he knows. very well that Pius IX., that most kind-hearted and most amiable of men, would have sent him back a congratulatory letter, with which his publisher no doubt would have adorned the pages of the second edition. Had he obtained it, he knows very well that our opinion of the exact value of his "Elements" would not be altered in the least, and that neither he nor any of his friends would venture to make of the papal letter an @gis for his "Elements." Why, then, should a congratulatory letter of Pius IX. be shaken threateningly in the face of critics and reviewers, to inspire them with due reverence for M. Craisson? Of the many bishops who gave-what shall we call them to avoid giving offence to the delicate ears of our fastidious canonist?-friendly letters to the author of the "Elements," we are convinced that not one of them ever conceived the idea, that the Reviewer was guilty of either insult or disrespect in their regard, for presuming to find fault with that book. Perhaps, some of them, for all we know, took it in very good part.

Before closing we wish to correct a mistake into which Dr. Smith has inadvertently fallen. We happened to say, that in some place he has given "by way of warning to bishops," the true, correct sense of the word "eleemosyna." He thinks this was said animo maligno, with a view to poison the minds of the bishops against his book. Never did he shoot wider of the mark. We can assure him that we considered it, on the contrary, not only lawful but commendable for him to lay down the law for the instruction (which includes warning) of our bishops. They are bound by law, as well as priests, and not being either infallible or impeccable, they may mistake the extent, or fail in the discharge, of their obligations. It was commendable in him to do it, for we have

heard of some abuses in this very matter, not general but local, which deserve condemnation, and may yet receive it, at the hands of Rome.

To conclude, we have been able to give only a hurried and superficial review of this pamphlet, which was sent us at a late hour, when the REVIEW was preparing for the press. Though we have been compelled to write in haste, we hope this has not influenced our temper. We are glad to bring our remarks to an end, and hope never to have occasion to return to the subject.

THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION; or, The Scriptural Cosmology, with the Ancient Idea of Time-worlds in Distinction from Worlds in Space. By Taylor Lewis, Professor in Union College. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1879.

The design of this work is to "set forth the Biblical idea of creation, philologically ascertained, or creation as revealed,' in distinction from any scientific or inductive theory of the earth." Dr. Lewis "thinks that he can truly claim that this is the first attempt to discuss the question at any length from the Scriptural or philological side." In making this assertion he does not wish to seem unjust towards the pious and able men who have of late defended the twenty-four hour hypothesis," and explains that with them "the exegetical is far from being the predominant element." The learned author has adopted the general idea, suggested by St. Augustine, that the "days" spoken of in Genesis are periods marking successive processes or stages in the formation of the earth.

In developing and endeavoring to prove this, Dr. Lewis examines laboriously and minutely all the Scriptural texts which he thinks throw light upon the subject, and comparing and analyzing them, subjects them to a rigorous exegetical examination.

To those who are concerned about the attacks of infidels upon the Mosaic record, on the assumption of its discrepancy with scientific conclusions, so-called, the work will be highly interesting; but to those who are grounded in the faith that "the world was framed by the Word of God," it seems rather a waste of learning and ability.

As regards the main question which the work discusses, there are only three possible positions:

First, Catholics, certain of the absolute infallible truth of divine revelation as interpreted by the Church, observe without the slightest concern, as to ultimate consequences, the assumed irreconcilability of scientific discoveries with divine revelation. They know that truth is consistent with itself, and that when the last meaning of every real discovery in the natural world is reached and understood, it will be found not in contradiction to, but in perfect harmony with revelation. Hence when a fact, or supposed fact, is set up against the truths of Christianity, they at once conclude, on grounds of the highest reason, that either the alleged fact is not a fact, or else that its true place among other facts, its relations to them and its real meaning, have not yet come to be correctly understood.

Hence, on the one hand, the Church regards not only without apprehension but with pleasure, investigation and study in every sphere of human knowledge, and not only does not forbid nor discourage them, but fosters and promotes them, knowing that when their ripe fruits shall all have been gathered in, and their final results shall have been reached, they will furnish new illustrations and confirmations of her own doctrines.

Secondly, There are the rationalistic scientists, who assume the certainty of human science and deny or ignore divine revelation. They undertake to pursue a like process to that of Catholics, but in the reverse order. Catholics test the assumptions and supposed conclusions of science by the certain, unerring truths of revelation as taught infallibly by the Church; scientists, on the other hand, undertake to subject divine revelation to the test of the supposed truths of science. They attempt to overthrow the certainty of faith by the uncertainty of scientific assumptions and theories based on partial and incomplete investigations, whose final results and last meaning have not yet been reached. "Evangelical Protestants" form the third class. They, confessedly, have no certain elements whatever to start from in their attempts to solve the questions raised by scientists. They profess, it is true, belief in an infallible Bible; but they are entirely at sea as to its interpretation. Thus, uncertain on the one hand as to the meaning of divine revelation, and, on the other, uncertain as to the real results of scientific investigation, they resemble persons who attempt to evolve a known quantity out of two that are unknown.

For

Even supposing that Dr Lewis's laborious and minute exegetical examination of Scripture texts were correct, we do not perceive that he has contributed anything towards the "reconciliation" which he deems so important. Supposing that he showed clearly that his interpretations of Scripture were in perfect harmony with the scientific theories of the day, he would have to do his whole work over again to-morrow. scientific theories are continually changing. Opinions that were tenaciously held a few years ago, are given up to-day; and those of to-day are plainly in process of being superseded by others in the near future. When human science arrives at positive, absolute, unchangeable knowledge of the ultimate meaning of what it investigates and studies, it will be time enough to compare its results with the teaching of divine revelation. To attempt it sooner seems to us very much like chasing a willo-the-wisp.

EDUCATION AS A SCIENCE. By Alexander Bain, LL.D. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1879. 12mo. pp. 453.

This book is the twenty-fifth of the International Scientific Series. It is in keeping with the others; and we consider it by far superior to Dr. Bain's other contribution on Mind and Body, which seemed to us very crude.

The author's view is different from that usually taken of education, inasmuch as he attempts to place it upon a scientific basis. But we do not regard his effort as altogether successful. In real science the whole subject and its method flow from a few well-understood principles. Now the basis of a science of education is psychology and moral philosophy. In these must its principles be grounded. But Dr. Bain, though in some manner or other dealing with these subjects, fails to lay down the principles they disclose. In their stead he is content to assert some surface observations in reference to the workings of human nature.

We are prepared for some strange disclosures on the subject of moral and religious training, when we remember that Dr. Bain is not of the Scotch school of Reid, but rather of a materialistic school that has many points of contact with the teachings of Mill, and Herbert Spencer, and Darwin. For example, the religious question he dismisses in this flippant manner: "People might well be satisfied, as far as regards the school, with

the markedly Theistic and Christian vein of all the lesson-books, and with the great susceptibility of the young mind to the explanation of the world by a personal God. Any results beyond should be sought somewhere else" (p. 424). We need scarcely add that the results of such a training would be anything but Christian. They are such as would suit Messrs. Herbert Spencer and John Fiske. They would be the destruction of all religion. Dr. Bain is beyond his depth in treating of this burning question. To be part of a man's thinking and the principle of his actions, religion must surround him from the cradle to the grave, everywhere guiding and instructing him, on all occasions, under all cir cumstances, his protector and good angel. It must be as intimate a part of his existence as his breathing. On the moral and religious bearing of education we cannot recommend Education as a Science. But there is a book which we would like to see in the hands of every thinker and educator. It is a work written by Dr. Stapf, of Germany, and translated into English and published in Edinburgh many years ago. It is called in its English dress The Spirit and Scope of Education. We suggest to our enterprising Catholic publishers its republication in this country. It is admirable on all those points on which the book under review is weakest. And it is as fully entitled to the claim of being a scientific treatise.

In the instructional part of his book Dr. Bain says many good things. But when he starts off on a crusade against the study of the Latin and Greek languages, he drops a great many essential quantities out of his reckoning. For the Catholic student the Latin language must always hold an almost sacred character. It is the language of the Church. It is the language in which she speaks to the faithful in all parts of the earth. It is the language in which is preserved the record of her glories and her triumphs, her struggles and persecutions, and the lives and words of her saints and her learned men. But it were almost sufficient reason for the study of Latin that in it is written the Summa of St. Thomas. Catholic colleges cannot dispense with the study of the classics and retain their claim to the title of Catholic. It may do well enough for the sophists of the hour who have no part to study, or to whom the past a reproach, or who would have their disciples know no other horizon than that which their farthing candles reveal. The descendants of the Gregories and the Leos, of Augustine and Aquinas, must have a better training and a nobler education.

is

THE DAWN OF HISTORY: An Introduction to Prehistoric Study. Edited by C. F. Keary, M.A., of the British Museum. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

The study of prehistoric times is of comparatively recent date. But, brief as is the period since it has become a specialty, we can trace a like change in its progress and history to those which have occurred in astronomy and geology. It is within the personal recollection of many of the readers of the REVIEW, when both of these branches of physical science were popularly supposed to threaten the overthrow of the truths of divine revelation. Every spouter and smatterer who aspired to be regarded as liberal or advanced in his ideas, appealed to real or supposed astronomical or geological facts as containing indubitable proofs that the Scriptures could not be true. In like manner archæological investigations into the history and antiquities of Egypt were confidently appealed to as successfully impeaching the earlier Old Testament writings. A few

years passed, and when a careful sifting of the results attained in all three of these branches of science was made, and crude surmises gave place to more thoughtful reflection, the results were found confirmatory, in different and independent ways, of the statements of divine revelation. The study of prehistoric times is evidently passing through a similar process. A few years ago it was confidently predicted that it would disprove, beyond all question or doubt, the common origin of mankind. Already, however, it has been found that instead of leading to any such conclusion it furnishes many strong proofs of the unity of the human race. In like manner it was supposed that it would confirm the popular theory, among modern physicists, of evolution, and furnish incontestable evidence that the primitive man was a savage but little removed from an ape; yet already the more careful and thoughtful students of prehistoric times have come to feel, on scientific grounds, that such a conclusion would not only be premature, but irreconcilable with many ascertained archæological facts.

The work before us is an important contribution to the study of prehistoric times. It is made up of essays by two English scientists, H. M. Keary and C. F. Keary, M.A., of the British Museum. As a summary of facts and materials collected by various archæological investigators it is valuable. To criticize the opinions expressed or implied in its pages, strikes us as a waste of time. For, as is well remarked in the preface, "Prehistoric science has not yet passed out of that early stage when workers are too busy in the various branches of the subject to spare much time for a comparison of the results of their labors," when, one may say, "fresh contributions are pouring in too fast to be placed upon their proper shelves in the storehouse of our knowledge." Under such cir

cumstances it is evident that for any scientist to undertake to dogmatize or make positive assertions on the basis of processes of investigation that are confessedly still progressing and far from complete, would be the height of folly.

Yet incomplete as these prehistoric studies are, they have progressed far enough to knock to pieces the crude, but self-confident theories, based on discoveries, real or supposed, respecting the stone age, that man started as a debased savage.

BISMARCK IN THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, 1870-1871. Authorized translation from the German of Dr. Moritz Busch. Two volumes in one. Authorized Edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

This work is intended to be a life portrait of Bismarck during the memorable seven months of the Franco-German war. The author had rare facilities for studying the character of the person he undertakes to depict. He was an attaché of the Count's ministerial bureau, and his medium for inspiring the public press, particularly in Germany, and to some extent in England also. He was a member of the household of the Imperial Chancellor, or, as he was then called, the Chancellor of the Confederation, and was immediately attached to his person during the whole period of the war and the negotiations for peace at its close.

A pen portrait of Bismarck made by a person enjoying such facilities for becoming intimately acquainted with his habits, ideas, and private character, it might be supposed could scarcely fail to be in the highest degree interesting. Dr. Busch's work, however, fails to fulfil this reasonable expectation. He has endeavored, consciously or unconsciously, to fill to the Chancellor of Germany the part which Boswell VOL. IV.-25