482 Analyses of Books . [August, 
This, to be sure, is a distinction which has long been floating in 
the minds of men of Science, but nowhere have we yet seen it 
put so tersely, clearly, and forcibly. That the author, as a Pre- 
late of our National Church, should have thus put it, surely 
entitles him to our grateful appreciation. The same essay 
enlarges on the importance of a strict boundary-line between the 
study of God and the study of Nature, — in other words, between 
Theology and Science. Could this be carried out, the fruitless 
and unedifying disputes between priest and savant would come 
to an end. But the difficulty is, where and how to draw the line, 
and this difficulty becomes strikingly evident in the very essay 
before us. The Bishop criticises, in the first place, certain 
extracts from the writings of Ernst Haeckel. He quotes the 
passage, “Everyone who makes a really close study of the 
organisation and mode of life of the various animals and plants 
.... must necessarily come to the conclusion that this ‘purpo- 
siveness ’ no more exists than the much-talked-of ‘ beneficence ’ 
of the Creator.” Upon this passage the author makes the 
following comment: — “We have a denial ex cathedra of the 
existence of such a such a thing as a moral order, or of such a 
person as a beneficent Creator. This is not merely atheous, it 
is atheistic. An investigator of nature has a right to say that 
the question of the existence of a beneficent Creator, or the non- 
existence of such a Being, does not affeCt his investigations ; but 
he has no right, upon the strength of investigations purely 
physical, to deny the existence of beneficence as an attribute of 
the Creator, if a Creator there be.” We perfectly agree with the 
Bishop that Professor Haeckel has here gone beyond his rights. 
Had he, more modestly, declared that the researches of the 
naturalist throw no definite light upon the moral attributes of 
God, he would have been distinctly within his rights, and would 
have taken merely a view which, not long ago, we had the 
pleasure of hearing most ably enforced by the Rev. Professor 
Dallinger, F.R.S. 
Many readers will find with surprise that the Bishop, in his 
turn, draws the “ frontier line ” in a manner which few men of 
Science will be able to accept, and which we at any rate must 
utterly repudiate. He writes : — “ When anthropology is classed 
amongst the physical sciences, it is necessary to confine the 
investigations comprehended under the title to the consideration 
of man as a creature having certain material attributes, and 
leaving certain material marks of his existence in past ages.” 
And again, “ To say that physical science does not include the 
study of man is perhaps nearly the same thing as saying that 
man is not a part of nature. . . . Putting aside all question of 
immortality, it is not difficult to conclude that mankind possess 
attributes which do not belong to other creatures, and which 
make it necessary, in examining the world, to put man in a class 
by fc himself.” 
