also touched upon, though it is not his theme, and a note regrets --what we ourselves have often remarked upon-the utter want of reflection women engaged in trade will sometimes show upon the occupation of their lives and what is constantly before their eyes. A shopwoman, he says, knows how to write and cast up accounts, and even keeps the books, yet she cannot answer a customer's questions on points connected with her business which the smallest habit of intelligent inquiry would have made her mistress of. My husband will tell you when he comes,' is all she can say; and women who work all their lives in the fields more the custom in France than with us- -' will scarcely know when it is sowing or mowing time.' This stupidity will be regarded by some simply as a proof of natural inferiority, but a sense of inferiority of position and of lower responsibilities will produce in men precisely the same results. Mental labour is the greatest of all trouble, and one which humanity in general shirks, unless urged on by the expectation, or at least the chance, of applying it to some personal end.

The book concludes with what is called the practical part, in which the author strongly advocates for women the use of the pen. All persons are influenced in such decisions, not so much by abstract arguments of fitness and justice as by effects, and Frenchwomen have served the cause of religion so well of late years by their pen, and have shown themselves such docile disciples in their championship, that we do not wonder that Mgr. Dupanloup should take a line which churchmen have not always adopted. He is astonished that there should be any doubt on such a subject; arguing that the quantity of discussion to prove that women ought not to write, only shows that the art of composition is within the range of their powers. So much trouble has not been taken to show that women cannot be generals or ministers, and the example of one warlike woman -as there have been such-never instigates the rest to follow her example.

The conclusion of the treatise enforces a plan of life; illustrating this necessity by a pretty simile drawn from his own cathedral of Orleans, built in an age when architects could conceive a vast harmonious plan. Modern architects, on the contrary, are great at detail-detail which in the building he loves is sometimes incorrect, so at least the judges tell him Stand at a distance, however, and then compare the results of old and new power of design.

'The best women atone for their first great mistake as much as they can, by subsequent meritorious actions, which resemble those charming details introduced into their works by the architects of the day, to compensate, as much as possible, for the faults of their original design. We admire them near and one

by one; but standing at a distance from them, they disappear: and the whole is shorn of its great features. What an irremediable defect !

A plan of life is, therefore, necessary, in order that nothing may be left to chance or to uncertainty, in the great features of existence. To obtain this, a very simple and yet a very rare thing is necessary--a methodical order.'

Upon this theme the Bishop discourses with excellent sense and comprehension of his subject, on which indeed he has had ample data for forming an opinion, as our extracts will have proved.

Few clergymen of our own communion could put themselves thus forward as the consultee the appeal, the adviser of women of fashion, and of Society. Mgr. Dupanloup has made admirable use of this knowledge in these pages, and given ladies of the world, whatever their country or communion, much sound advice; in fact religion is here dissociated from dogma, as though to make the treatise of universal application; but if any one argue from his fitness for the task of counsellor, the advisability of such intimate counsellors as a universal institution, we cannot but own in justice to our countrywomen, that there is a reply to the argument in the fact that, left more to themselves, or deriving their teaching from a less formally prescribed source, they have not yet fallen into such a sea of utter frivolity and 'futility' as the ladies of Paris, with all their opportunities, are here represented to be plunged. Nor are English husbands and fathers so determined against intellectual advance, as we are given here to understand are women's natural guardians in France, so that if our country women are without so eloquent a spiritual champion of these intellectual capabilities and rights they have not the same need of one.

437

ART. VIII.-1. La Religion Naturelle. Par JULES SIMON. Paris: Hachette et Cie.

2. The Sume, translated into English by J. W. COLE. Edited, with a Preface and Notes, by the REV. J. B. MARSDEN, London: Bentley. 1867.

3. De la Religion Naturelle, à propos du Livre de M. JULES SIMON. Par M. LE PRINCE ALBERT DE BROGLIE. [Republished, with Corrections, in the Author's 'Questions de Religion et d'Histoire' (Tome Second). Paris: Lévy Frères.] 4. The Dogmatic Faith, an Inquiry into the Relation subsisting between Revelation and Dogma: being the Bampton Lectures for the Year 1867. By EDWARD GARBETT, M.A. Incumbent of Christ Church, Surbiton. London, Oxford, and Cambridge Rivingtons.

5. Joshua's Obedience. A Sermon delivered by C. H. SPURGEON, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington. London: Passmore and Alabaster,

1868.

6. The Contemporary Review, 1867-68. London Strahan and Co.

WE propose, under this title, 'Lines of Demarcation,' to offer some observations (1) on the differences which divide believers in real Theism from those who, while nominally Theists, either consciously or unconsciously fall short of the acceptance of the principles which true Theism involves, or else maintain that it can hold its ground apart from Revelation; (2) on the differences between those who admit, and those who do not admit, the existence of authoritative dogma; (3) on the difference between the holders of Zuinglian and of anti-Zuinglian views of the sacraments of Christ's Church. These may seem to many to be trite and hackneyed themes. Our apology for their re-introduction into the pages of this Review must lie in the somewhat novel treatment which they have of late years received in various quarters.

1. As regards Theism. The two opposing views to which we refer may be summarily stated as that of men who regard the Creator of all things as a kind of constitutional monarch, hemmed in and thwarted at every turn by laws which he is unable to control, and the belief of those who look up to God as a Being who is truly Almighty, unlimited in His power, saving only by His own

righteous attributes, which render it impossible for Him to do anything unholy or unjust, since that would be to contravene His own absolute perfections. They who believe in such almightiness and such justice infer alike from the whispers of conscience and from the language of Holy Scripture a real connexion between the conduct of men and the sufferings or blessings which attend their course. That this view of Theism is taught in every page of the Old and New Testament will not, we presume, be seriously questioned. That it is widely spread even among the heathen, and that it is part of the essence of Mahometanism, is equally certain. The following is a recent enunciation of the contrary belief:

'Be careful that your conception of the Builder of the Universe is not an unworthy conception. Invest that conception with your grandest and highest and holiest thought, but be careful of pretending to know more than it is given to man to know. Be careful, above all things, of professing to see in the phenomena of the material world the evidences of Divine pleasure or displeasure. Doubt those equally who pretend to see in cholera, cattle plague, and bad harvest, evidences of Divine anger.'

Such was the theology set forth by one of the most brilliant and fascinating lecturers of our day, before a large assemblage of working men, in Dundee, in the month of September 1867. But the speaker, Professor Tyndall, has elsewhere expressly disclaimed the tenets of Atheism or of Polytheism. Consequently, he must believe that the above principles are those of a real Theism.

Now, if Professor Tyndall simply meant to warn his audience against rash decisions concerning individual cases, he would, of course, have only been repeating the solemn admonitions recorded in the Gospels with reference to the Galileans slain by Pilate in the midst of their sacrifices, and the eighteen who were killed by the fall of the tower in Siloam. But his words reach much further than this. We can hardly be mistaken in supposing that Mr. Tyndall would be quite as much opposed to a general recognition of the evidence of divine anger in material phenomena, as to any rash or special application. And when he says doubt those who pretend to see, &c.' he can hardly be unaware that he is asking us to doubt all writers who employ such language as the following: Thus saith the Lord God; how much more when 'I send My four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and 'the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off 'from it man and beast.' For Ezekiel does hereby clearly claim to see evidences of divine anger in famine and in pestilence, which are terms equivalent to the Professor's cholera, cattle plague, and bad harvest.' It is needless to multiply quotations. If any one is desirous of reading a masterly summary of what

the Israelites believed Theism to involve, let him turn to the statement of Strauss in the opening portion of the 'Leben Jesu.'

But the supporters of Professor Tyndall's views would at this point interpose. They would urge, that granting to the fullest extent the fact that Hebrew literature proclaims this doctrine concerning the divine agency, they attribute no special value or authority to the books in which this doctrine is contained. Texts, such as the one just cited; histories such as that of the chastisement impending over Nineveh and its withdrawal on the guilty city's penitence, to them mean simply nothing. They maintain the tenableness of Theism, without admitting the existence of Revelation.

And here, then, it would seem that we have the reappearance of the old warfare so often and so stubbornly waged in the eighteenth century. Bishop Butler's Analogy,' and Paley's Evidences of Christianity, are directed against Theists, not against Atheists. It might be thought, therefore, enough to refer students of theology to those valuable and well-tried armouries. But the ground is often shifted; the positions taken up by the opponents of revelation are not always identical with those against which Butler and Paley contended. We feel at moments like students of the military art who, when endeavouring to trace the evidences of the struggles on some fanious field of action, find, as at the scene of Clive's victory at Plassey, that a mighty river has changed its course and obliterated most of the ancient landmarks. It may prove, therefore, neither uninteresting nor useless, to turn our eyes upon a more recent specimen of such combat.

Who is the noblest representative of the school which puts forth the claims of a Theism which can dispense with all aid from revelation? Not, we apprehend, Professor Tyndall. That learned and able thinker did not consider it inconsistent with his self-respect to conclude his lecture to the working men at Dundee with an appeal to popularity based on the introduction of an unpopular name. He thought fit to imply that the followers of Dr. Pusey,' of all people in the world, were inclined to make the Thirty-nine Articles the measure of God's creation. The taunt was as unjust as it was ungenerous. No school in theology has more constantly avowed for the last twenty years its conviction, that the Articles, being the work of a National Church only, must be subordinated to the teaching of the Church Universal, must be liable to revision or (if need be) even to withdrawal. It is true that there are those who may consider that this is only removing the matter one step further; and that, as wise men, we ought to consider the theology of Mr. Carlyle and Professor Tyndall as something far superior to that of the Church Universal. But