this happens not to be our conception of true wisdom. We forbear at present to show cause why it is not, but must rest content with stating the fact.

Is there no one who can state the case on behalf of the tenableness of Theism apart from Revelation, without the introduction of extraneous matter, without flinging girds at unpopular names? We trust that in the ranks of our opponents there are many such to be found. We proceed to select, as a specimen of such controversy, a single work from among the productions of one of them—the Religion Naturelle' of M. Jules Simon.

6

M. Simon, who was born in 1814, has abundant claims upon our respect both as an author and as a man. Having won the cross of the Legion of Honour in 1845, as a recognition of his excellence as a teacher of philosophy at the Sorbonne during a period of twelve years, he was returned in 1848, by the department of the Côtes-du-Nord, as member of the Constituent Assembly. Moderate in his political views, he combated the socialist theories of labour then prevalent in France, and courageously exerted himself to stay the effusion of blood in the terrible émeute which burst forth in the June of that summer. A pro

tester in 1851 against the famous coup d'état of the preceding 2nd of December, he withdrew for a season into private life, but was returned again to the Chambers at the election in 1863, when a district of Paris sent him into the Corps Législatif. The same year saw him chosen, all but unanimously, into the Academy of the Moral and Political Sciences.

The writings of M. Jules Simon display great elevation of thought and felicity of style. His publications before 1845 were chiefly concerned with the Théodicée' of Plato and Aristotle, the commentary of Proclus upon Plato's Timæus,' and the history of the philosophic schools of Alexandria. But during the last twelve or fourteen years he has turned his attention to the problems of theology and of philanthropy; and no amount of difference on the former subject can render us insensible to the value and earnestness of his zeal for the temporal and moral welfare of his fellow-men.

One specimen of M. Simon's temper in these matters shall be here set down. Its beauty and pathos will, we trust, induce our readers to pardon the momentary digression caused by its introduction. In one of his interesting and powerful papers on the ways of livelihood open to women in France, he draws a most painful picture of the life of shopgirls in the great cities of that country. They are, he says, miserably paid, and assailed by keen and obvious temptations to desert the path of virtue. Seldom is an offer of marriage their lot; for the working-man in

search of a wife naturally looks for her in the bosom of a family. They see daily pass before them in splendid equipages and toilettes the heroines of vice, and too many (though sometimes to escape starvation) join those glittering ranks, while the less abandoned cling to a single love unsanctioned and unprotected by wedlock.

"There are however, exceptions to the picture we have just drawn, buț these are so few as to be hardly perceptible. We mention them (in concluding) only in order to render our homage to unconscious virtue worthy of our deepest admiration and respect. It is a great thing to be good, even when the being so costs us nothing; it is good to bear misfortune patiently, even when one has no power to lessen the infliction; but to remain in want and poverty when we have only to will it in order to cease to be so, to resist at the same time both misery and pleasure, is not that the most splendid of triumphs? When so many are trampling under foot their conscience, there are still to be found in the ateliers of Paris, poor girls who, faithful to their mothers' teaching and the recollections of their distant homes, work and suffer the livelong day, without even giving a regret to those easy pleasures, to that luxury, that plenty, from which they are themselves only debarred, only separated, by their feeling of duty! One must have beheld them in their isolation, their destitution, and their saintly innocence, if we would know what is real greatness. Such of us as have seen you, will never forget the lessons you taught: ye cottages of Septmoncel, where bread was lacking in the kneading-trough, where rubies and emeralds rolled on the table: ye workshops of Lyons, where embroidered satin displays on the loom its dazzling flowering, whilst the family bear with resignation all the tortures of hunger: ye wretched, cold, damp Parisian garrets, where fair and fading young girls ply the needle from morning to night, and die at their task rather than sin!'I

'La Religion Naturelle' is a small octavo, replete with grave, courteous, and sustained argument. The following are some of its leading features. Firstly, M. Jules Simon proclaims himself a Theist. For proof of the existence of God he does not care to rest much on that à priori reasoning which, in France, is commonly associated with the name of Descartes; though we presume that M. Simon must be aware that it really owes its origin to the acute and fertile mind of S. Anselm. This method seems to our author too subtle to be satisfactory to the majority of men. Consequently, with many able reasoners (he might now appeal to the name of John Stuart Mill as that of a supporter on this point), M. Simon prefers to make use of the older and simpler argument à posteriori, and to prove the Being of the Creator from the works of His creation. On this feature of his work we have only to remark that a large number of Christians will agree with our author; that even those who see much to admire in the Anselmian process, will most readily admit that

1 Revue des deux Mondes for 1st November, 1860, p. 182.

its value is a perfectly open question, concerning which good and wise men may well be content to differ in peace; and that the appeal from the existence of created things to the existence of their Maker, must at any rate be perfectly safe and lawful, seeing that it is sanctioned by the pen of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. (Romans i. 19, 20.)

In the next place our author is anti-pantheistic. We need not now dwell on this part of the subject. Pantheism is, we fear, too often little more than a thinly veiled Atheism. It has, however, been frequently of late years discussed in the pages of this 'Review,' and needs not, except indirectly, come into notice in the course of our present argument. Further, it is maintained in 'La Religion Naturelle,' that the attributes of the Godhead, His perfect wisdom, justice, and power are incontestable; and that immutability and providence co-exist in the Creator without our being able to account for the association. To the objections against Theism derived from the existence of evil, M. Simon sees but one reply, and that is our immortality. In speaking of the world to come, he dwells chiefly upon the happiness of the just. Let us lay aside altogether,' are his words, 'what concerns the specific punishment of the guilty. They will be punished. This is all we are interested in, for this alone is necessary to the justification of Providence: the nature of the punishment is of secondary importance. We know that it will be proportioned to the 'crime, for the judge is infallible.' It is also worthy of remark, that he defends the Gallican Church from one very common 'but most unreasonable charge of intolerance. The Catholic clergy sometimes refuse the rites of sepulture to those who have notoriously withdrawn from religious observances. Then

follow complaints and exasperation. He who professes no

'faith in God is the loudest in his outcries. He desires for his corpse a benediction, which he scoffed at while living, and expects in death an accompanying decorum, composed of a priest and an emblem of Christianity.'

Thus far we have little ground of controversy with M. Simon. But there are other portions of his work which present far greater difficulties. There are assumptions which Christians cannot conscientiously admit as valid, there are claims made on behalf of Theism which do not seem justified either by abstract reasoning or by the evidence of history. A few of the weak points in M. Simon's armour have been descried by the editor of the English translation, the Rev. J. B. Marsden. But for a full examination of the subject we must look to the work of one of M. Simon's countrymen. Prince Albert de Broglie, in his Questions de Religion et d'Histoire,' has republished, with important modifications and improvements, the reply to M.

Simon which originally appeared in a Parisian review; if we mistake not, in 'Le Correspondant.' And since this paper of M. Broglie is utterly, we believe, unknown in this country, we propose, instead of attemping to make a criticism of our own, simply to furnish our readers with an epitome of the best modern essay with which we are acquainted on The Untenableness of mere Theism.’

6

M. de Broglie begins by observing that Christian theologians are not thoroughly agreed on the extent of the power which must be conceded to human reason, nor on the just measure of its limitations. But all agree in granting that it has a power, which, though circumscribed, is real and effective. While reserving to himself the freedom thus left open, he desires to confine his line of argument as much as possible to the one great question at issue; that, namely, between a rationalist philosophy and revealed religion. Our author proceeds to complain of the excessive spirit of reciprocal disdain at present common in France. There have been times, he thinks, of more ardent hatred, of more violence of expression and of action, but never one of a more contemptuous spirit; of a tone which excludes all chance of sympathy and prospect of reconciliation. It is at least worth considering whether these remarks may not be capable of application nearer home.

This spirit is especially manifested in discussions between Christians and unbelievers. The sceptic treats the submission of the Christian to a revealed authority as the mark of a narrow intellect and a servile spirit. The Christian, deeply penetrated by a righteous conviction of the moral excellence of his religion, pained and shocked by a doubt which profanes the objects of that faith which he has cherished from his childhood, is easily led to doubt the sincerity and the intellectual honesty of antagonists. The sceptic considers a limited understanding to be the groundwork of the Christian's faith; the Christian holds that his adversary's doubts can only arise from vices of the heart. Such mutual contempt and distrust render fair discussion extremely difficult.

M. Simon's book is admirably calculated to cause at least a truce to all angry recriminations. He does not profess to attack the fabric of the Christian religion, but to raise up by its side a rival edifice, founded exclusively on human reason. But in attempting this task he not only abstains from outraging the feelings of Christians, but even has for them words of esteem, of respect, and at times almost of envy. While assigning, it would seem, an undue place to authority in the Christian scheme, and not taking sufficiently into account the large scope still left for reason, M. Simon exhibits no haughty disdain for the principle

of authority in itself, no sneer nor contemptuous pity for the worshippers of Christ.

Concerning the moral characteristics of Jules Simon, his French opponent has convictions very similar to those which we have already expressed. M. de Broglie sees in the moral theories of this Deist the inspirations of an honest conscience, which makes no compromise with the most rigorous demands of duty, which never shrinks from the consequences of its principles, which is profoundly moved by the thought of its Creator, by the contemplation of His providence, and by the hopes of another life. M. de Broglie likewise, and he is no mean judge, agrees with those who recognize in M. Simon's style a combination of warmth and clearness which is a faithful exponent of the writer's vigour and loftiness of thought.

It may, indeed, be asked whether it were not a wise course to leave unanswered an opponent who admits so much. M. Simon concedes as the bases of his natural religion, the existence of God, His providential goodness, the spirituality and immortality of the soul, the recompense of good, the punishment of crime. In company with Christians he attacks the common enemy in the form of Pantheism, of Materialism, of the renewed dreams of Parmenides and Epicurus. Why not make terms with him rather than controvert him on points of difference?

M. de Broglie replies, most justly, that such a compromise must be impossible. The Gospel teaches that all men, without exception, have lost, through the results of an original and hereditary enfeeblement, the power to fulfil, nay, even to comprehend completely, their duty upon earth, and the power to win the assurance of their soul's salvation after death; and that, consequently, man would perish without resource if God had not come in human form to open to him the sources of virtue, of pardon, and of life. How, then, is it possible for Christians to admit the existence of another religious state, where, on one side of the Gospel and of Christ, man may live secure from perils, under the eye of a protecting God, in the fulfilment of the moral law, in peace of conscience, and in hope of another life? Surely, if Christianity is unnecessary, it is false; if not indispensable, it is a lie. It is one of those things of which we may truly assert that if it is not all, it is nothing. To share its claims with another system is in fact an abdication. It is indeed most true that outside of Christianity there are multitudes of souls seeking truth, who do not find it, or find it only in feeble and imperfect measure. God takes account alike of their knowledge and their ignorance, of their yearnings and their weakness, of their attachment to whatever truth they hold, of their inclinations towards the truths they have not reached. But such cases of souls astray,