Forbes is to the News. He illustrated war scenes during the Russo-Turkish war and the war in Afghanistan, remaining in the latter country until the sham treaty of peace at Gundamuk, which resulted in the massacre of Major Cavagnari and his staff, and had in his possession the pens with which that famous treaty was signed. He was brilliant with his pen and clever with his pencil, and united in himself the best requisites of a war correspondent. His sketches in the Graphic gave him a wide reputation, and his dispatches and letters showed him to be a man of daring and action.

The fate of O'Donovan and Villiers is an illustration of the dangers attending the position of a war correspondent. There is no one, not even the enlisted soldier, whose life is more frequently endangered than that of him who undertakes to write the daily history of wars for the readers of the daily newspaper. Yet such is the fascination of the vocation, such the chances for fame, that the number of aspirants for the perilous position is far in excess of the demand. It would be impossible to measure the extent of the influence of such war correspondents as we have named, in producing changes in the sanitary and ethic regulations of armies; in bringing on and terminating wars; in ameliorating the conditions of weaker nations; in changing national boundaries, and modifying treaties.

ARTICLE V.

THE EXEGETE AND THE THEOLOGIAN.

BY REV. W. H. H. MARSH, D. D.

THE REV. P. J. Cloag, D. D., of Scotland, in his Commentary on "The Acts of the Apostles," referring to the baptism of Lydia and her household, says: "Evidently the passage in itself can not be adduced as proof either for or against infant baptism." He then adds, "This subject (infant baptism), however, belongs to dogmatical and not to exegetical theology."* With the controversy respecting infant baptism we have nothing to do in this paper; but with the assumption contained in the quotation from Dr. Cloag we have. His assumption is, that the spheres of dogmatical and exegetical theology are so distinct that some things belong to the one and not to the other. Το how many questions beside infant baptism Dr. Cloag would apply the principle he assumes we do not know. Probably to only a very small number. About that we are not concerned. The significant thing is that a Presbyterian divine of his ability and position should make such a distinction, and thereby affirm that there can be either practice or belief, for the authority of which we rely on the Word of God, that belongs to dogmatical and not to exegetical theology. If it were the statement of the personal opinion of Dr. Cloag we should not have adverted to it, but it is, in fact, much more. It is an incidental observation unconsciously defining the development and divergence of two existing tendencies. One is the arbitrary insistance of dogmatic belief that the interpretation of the *Cloag "On Acts," Vol. II, page 119, Ed. 1870. Edinburgh, VOL. VI, No. 24-32

Bible must accord with accepted dogmatic presuppositions; the other to give such prominence to semi-rationalistic methods of interpretation and to the merely literary spirit as more and more to divorce Biblical exegesis itself from the consensus of Bible truth as incarnated in the convictions of evangelical Christians.

Traditional belief has begotten traditional interpretation.* This is one side. The progress of exegetical study which, compared with the Reformation era, has been very great, and which refuses to be restricted by the boundaries of creed statements and the stereotyped interpretation of standard proof texts is the other. To the "Higher Criticism" as presented by Professor C. A. Briggs-and certainly by him in its most favorable aspects towards evangelical views of the Bible-we can not assent. With the "New Theology" as it agonizes in the pains of parturition on the pages of the Rev. Dr. T. T. Munger's book, or as its shadowy form sometimes appears in the Andover Review, we have no sympathy. But there is one fact in the "Higher Criticism" and the "New Theology" prejudice must not be permitted to ignore, nor the strength of our confidence in the "Old Theology" allow us to underestimate. It is that they are both the outcome of the two tendencies we have defined. They represent a movement, honest in its intention, however mistaken in its method, to reconstruct our views of the Bible and to so remould our conception of what it teaches and how it was meant to teach what it does, as to remove the current antagonism between these two tendencies. Thus viewed the nebulous agitation called the "New Theology" is something that can not be flippantly ignored, nor can its advocates be routed by sneers and resounding shouts for orthodoxy. We think it one of the most subtle defections from the truth the Church has ever been called to resist or theologians to detect and refute, because its roots lie so deeply in the advance of sacred learning since the Reformation, and be*See "Biblical Study," by Professor Briggs, pp. 98, 99.

477 cause, practically, it has so much in sympathy with the expansive Christian life of our century. If its causes are not analyzed and mastered we shall be at great disadvantage in the controversy of which it is the herald; for it is a timely admonition that exegesis and theology must be kept closely together; that their functions are not dissimilar; and that personal regeneration by the Holy Spirit, who revealed the Word by inspired men, is essential both to the correct interpretation of that Word and the definition of its doctrines.

We say their functions are not dissimilar, neither are they identical. The one works in the quarry, the other builds with material thus supplied.* Of exegesis the object is, says Dr. A. A. Hodge, "to arrive at the exact mind of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the text;" and of theology the design is, he says, "by means of a just and impartial induction from the sacred text, truly interpreted, to present a scientific exhibition of all the doctrines of the Bible in their essential relations."+ We accept these definitions. They are clear, concise, comprehensive. Whatever we are about to say respecting the sphere and functions of either exegete or theologian, we design to be within the limitations of these definitions. Restricting ourselves to the sphere and functions we can have nothing to say, except indirectly, regarding the qualifications of the competent exegete or the culture and scholarship necessary to the Biblical theologian. Our position is, that theology must rest upon exegesis, because interpretation must precede induction. Exegesis must not be deflected from the straight line of the truth contained in the Word, in order that seeming results may give support to accepted dogmas. On the contrary, received doctrines must be held subject to modification or to be entirely rejected as the progress of exegesis unfolds the fuller meaning of the Word. It was

* Consult a valuable paper by Professor W. A. Stevens on "Constructive Exegesis," in Bib. Sac. for April, 1882.

"Outlines of Theology," page 48, Ed. 1865.

pertinently and forcibly said by an able writer nearly thirty years ago a time when the "Higher Criticism" and "New Theology" were unknown here--that "theology without interpretation is the source of many deadly errors. Before

we can expound the Word of God we must know what it is."* This is indisputable, but as there is progress in interpretation there must be, of necessity, enlarged conceptions in theology. The advance in the former and the widening horizon of thought in the latter must be together, not separately. Only in this way, as an authority has shown, can the Church, at any period, "speak out of present and actual convictions." For if there is no such thing as "progressive theology," there is a progressive knowledge of what God has revealed. It would be presumption to claim that any creed exactly and exhaustively formulated the entire contents of the Bible. Such an assumption, to be valid, would require an absolutely perfect, understanding of whatever the Word of God contains. The work of the exegete and the theologian has reached in depth and breadth and height, a position far in advance of any stage in previous progress. But the work of neither is yet completed. The work of both is, because of the progress made, more important now than ever before. Never was it less possible or more perilous for the exegete to ignore the theologian or for the theologian to disparage the thorough work done by the exegete. They have before them the same volumethe Holy Scriptures-and for the same purpose to ascertain and formulate its meaning; but it does not follow from this that they are interdependent, in the same sense and to the same extent mutually aiding each other. In affirming this it is not forgotten that there is no doctrine in theology not equally a question in exegesis; and, therefore, that whenever an exegetical problem is solved, that solution will force. itself to the front and become a question in theology.

*Princeton Review, April, 1855.

† Professor Rainy's "Development and Delivery of Christian Doctrine."