OUR CHILDREN'S SHELTER.

BY THE RIGHT HON. THE BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTS. AMONGST her many services to innumerable good causes, the Baroness Burdett-Coutts has taken in hand few more deserving philanthropies than the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In the March number of the Sunday Magazine the Baroness concludes a series of papers on the work of this Society by describing two or three groups of children who may serve to illustrate what has in some extent been accomplished.

"Off to Bow Street!" The scene on the steps of the Society's Shelter is full of deep pathos, and it moves our hearts to infinite thankfulness for the changes which have been brought about in relation to child beggars.

When these little folks came to our care, Mr. Munro had just issued his order that all cases and matters relating to children coming under the notice of the police should be at once reported to our office in Harpur Street. Here are the three small beggars who had been arrested by the constable under the Vagrancy Act, brought before the magistrate and charged, and then remanded for a week to the Society's care for its inquiries and suggestions. They are now on their way to the police court to be charged. Before, however, the Society could have the custody temporarily of this class of children bail of £2 a head was required, and, further, it was needful that we should have windows barred in our Shelter, our little beggars having to be regarded as veritable Queen's prisoners. At this time the streets were literally infested with vagrant children. These children, when charged, were liable to be sent to industrial schools, and thus the parents got relieved of their responsibilities, and the evils were undoubted. Since the passing of the Children's Charter, however, the fact that the parents become liable to three months' imprisonment for inciting or allowing their children to beg, has changed the condition of the streets in this matter in a marvellous way. When the two smaller prisoners came to our care they were literally dumb. Not a word could we induce them to utter; they sucked their thumbs and looked charmingly pretty, but speak they would not. At last one day another little beggar girl was brought in, when the merriest clatter of tongues was heard. It was our two little silent folks chattering away to the new-comer, who proved to be their cousin, and who could tell us all about them. It was a pretty and pathetic sight to see how these little things all clung together, and the confidence they gradually got to feel in the place after that happy meeting. The two little sisters are now growing up to be bright, happy children, and are paid for in a Home in Surrey by the Countess of Iddesleigh.

We make it a very special part of our work to inquire into cases which come under our notice, where very young people and children are charged with crime, and it is astonishing to people interested in the study of character and of expression when they visit our Shelter and see our children, and then listen to the recital of what those who have excused themselves for ill-using them have to say in self-defence. They are little liars, little thieves, they have every vice which can be named in the category of things evil, and in innumerable cases the provocation to so stigmatise them has, after all, been most trifling. The cowardly anger of a brute is soon roused, and then some trifling act such as crying, letting out a fire, spilling beer out of a jug, coming in late, or being in when not wanted, is quite enough to arouse the wrath of the savage owner of some little helpless creature, "who is his own," as he says, "to do as he likes with." The changed law, however, which, by penalty of prison, has shown no less than two thousand two hundred and twenty-five people that the child now has

legal rights, is doing much to raise the sentiments in the hearts of the brutal as to the advisability of no longer venting their passion on the children.

There is something very pathetic when one considers the stain, so to speak, left on the minds of our little folks by the recollection of such incidents in their lives, and this is curiously illustrated by one of the favourite games of nearly all our little Shelter inmates-playing at being magistrates, policemen, and inspectors of the Society; and the sentences which are dealt out by these small folks on offenders against armless dolls or legless horses are certainly not remarkable for the leniency which is, from time to time, so startlingly shown in cases in real life, where quivering little human bodies have been the victims of hate and of anger. Another saddening game, if it can be so called, is one which, from time to time, our little folks rehearse-" Saturday night" it is called. Father comes home drunk, mother sits rocking herself to and fro by the fire, groaning. She asks for money, she gets none, only curses and evil words. The whole of the miserable scene and language so often witnessed in reality is gone through, showing but too clearly how sad and wretched has been the home life of many of our small inmates.

I now turn to the most pitiful histories our Shelter has had to deal with-the victims of those individuals known as "baby farmers," that numerous class of women whose traffic is in "unwanted" children, who for the most part should never have been born, but who nevertheless are born every year in this country to the number of over fifty thousand. These women like the vampire suck the blood and life from the little victims to cruelty and greed.

Just a year ago at this time, one bitter night, there were brought to our Shelter seven little wailing, starving, dying victims of one of these vampire wome:, and gruesome and terrible was the sight when the blankets were removed in which they were wrapped. The rough cabman, as he placed one little bundle after another in our matron's arms, cried like one of the babes himself. With ceaseless care and watching we could only save the lives of three of this sad little party. Miss Bolton describes her interview with Mrs. R. in H. Jail, and says she found her a plausible, gentle-mannered, kindly-eyed woman, who spoke in loving, motherly tones of the little children she had murdered. This manner had been her stock in trade. When Miss Bolton had talked with her for nearly an hour, and was turning to come away, Mrs. R. said, "Now, miss, you would not think I'd harm a little baby, would you? "No," said Miss Bolton, "I should not; but you must remember I saw what I can never forget, and that was those children." "Ah, well," said Mrs. R., "I had my misfortunes with them, poor darlints, and if they died-why I buried them just as if they'd been my own, in such pretty white coffins." Mrs. R. was charged with manslaughter, and was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. The three children who survived, after remaining with us for a long time, were at length sufficiently recovered to be placed in Homes. They were somewhat older than those who died, and, though they had suffered terribly, had rather more strength to battle against the treatment they had endured.

If those who look on the pictures here given would consider the thoughts roughly and crudely expressed in the foregoing words, it might induce them to give to our work a yet firmer and stronger help than even pity and love would prompt for the desolate little ones for whose protection the Society exists, and on whose behalf it works with untiring zeal. I feel strongly that when the public conscience was awakened, and pressure of public opinion demanded that a society should be formed for the protection of childhood, those who entered upon the work undertook a national obligation.

TOWERS, SPIRES, AND DOMES.

A COMPARISON OF GREAT CHURCHES.

WHEN this REVIEW was founded, a clergyman who had received a circular but had not seen the REVIEW wrote asking that we would review his church. He assured us that it had many architectural excellencies, and in many other respects was highly deserving of notice. We have not been able to attempt the colossal task of describing the many ecclesiastical structures in English Christendom, but the Girl's Own Paper for March contains an interesting article, with a frontispiece of which the accompanying illustration is a reduced facsimile, describing the loftiest churches in Europe. From this article we take the following extracts:

The great spire of Old St. Paul's (Fig. 4) was not only the loftiest building in the world at the date of its erection, but was unequalled in height until the year 1890. Of course we do not include such structures as the Eiffel Tower, because we are speaking of architecture, whereas the Eiffel Tower, Crystal Palace, and Forth Bridge, etc., are engineering works; and however wonderful as examples of mechanical ironmongery, cannot in any way be compared with architectural structures. The spire of Old St. Paul's shared the fate which befell so many of the lofty buildings of antiquity. It was destroyed by lightning in the reign of Elizabeth, and never reconstructed

In point of date the spire of Salisbury Cathedral is the earliest of all the great stone spires. It is just a very little over 400 feet in height from the ground, and from the level of the roof of the Cathedral upwards was erected in the reign of Edward III. The spire of the Cathedral of Vienna, completed in the year 1433 (Fig. 2 in our illustration), is 435 feet high. Unlike Salisbury, it rises direct from the ground, and not over the centre of the church.

The great spire of Strasburg (represented in Fig. 3) was completed in 1439 by an architect of the name of Johann Hultz, of Cologne, and is 480 feet high. As this is the loftiest ancient spire in existence, one would be glad to praise it; but apart from the elegance of its detail, and its beautiful workmanship, it cannot be regarded as a satisfactory work; it is too broken up and restless in design.

The next steeple we have to describe is that of the Cathedral of Ulm (Fig. 5), which is probably the loftiest building ever constructed, as it rises to the enormous height of 530 feet. The tower, 260 feet high, was erected towards the end of the fifteenth century by an architect of the name of Matthaus Boblinger, and carried on from 1500 to 1507 by Burkhard Engelberger, at which time the gigantic structure was left incomplete, and so remained until the year 1890.

Fig. 10 represents the lantern or steeple over the crossing at Milan Cathedral, the upper portion of which is a modern work, of no particular beauty. It reaches an elevation of 350 feet.

Fig. 11 shows the Cathedral of Cologne, with its two modern spires and central lantern. As there is a peculiar interest attached to the Cathedral of Cologne-it may in fact be looked upon as the great national cathedral of Germany, uniting the old empire of the Fatherland with that of the present time-we sincerely wish that we could praise these modern spires; but notwithstanding the vast size and their enormous height-518 feet-by far the highest pair of spires in existence-it must unfortunately be acknowledged that they are not a complete success.

Fig. 13 represents the steeple of Antwerp Cathedral. It will be noticed, upon looking at the design, that the composition does not in any way form a spire, but is really a series of lanterns placed one upon the other, terminating at the top with arches formed by flying buttresses sup

porting a heavy stone mass, which, in its turn, supports the cross and vane. This very beautiful tower was commenced in the year 1422 from the plans of an architect by the name of Appelmanns, and completed by Jean Amelius in 1518. It is the most thoroughly satisfactory structure of its kind ever erected, and, singularly enough, it is the only very lofty steeple which looks higher than it really is. Its absolute height is 403 feet. Certainly no one seeing Cologne or Ulm would suppose that they were loftier than Antwerp, yet the one is 114 feet higher, and the other 126.

We must now consider another very grand feature which Christian churches, especially of the Renaissance period, often possess, and that is the dome. Probably the dome is quite as early in its introduction as the spire.

The church of St. Sophia, Constantinople, is the largest very early example which we possess of the dome or cupola erected on a very grand scale. It must, however, be acknowledged that it was not until the close of the Middle Ages that the very lofty dome, such as we see at St. Peter's, Rome, or St. Paul's, London, was invented. St. Sophia, Constantinople, for instance, only rises to a height of about 150 feet from the ground; and the idea of placing a dome on the top of a great circular tower or drum is one which could only have emanated from the gigantic mind of Michael Angelo.

It will be seen, upon looking at the section of St. Peter's, Rome (Fig. 8), that although the exterior of the dome is only about one-fourth higher than that of St. Paul's, yet the interior is nearly double as lofty; and this arises from the fact that the inner and outer shells of the dome at St. Peter's are only 10 or 12 feet apart, whereas at St. Paul's they are about 70 feet apart. Of course Wren adopted this method of building a dome to avoid the enormous cost which would be involved in following the method adopted at St. Peter's, and perhaps he may be held to have been justified. His great object appears to have been to erect a grand feature, which should be a central object of the rebuilt City of London.

One must not, however, overlook the defects of the scheme. The first and greatest is this, that the thing is not what it pretends to be, but is, in fact, an architectural sham, as it is not a dome at all, but an extinguisher concealed by a wooden dome-shaped roof. The next defect is that internally some 70 feet of the height of the building is lost; thirdly, that the whole thing is a dangerous structure, because nothing could possibly render it fireproof, and the whole thing might be reduced to ashes in about a quarter of an hour.

In comparing the designs of the domes of St. Peter's and St. Paul's, we see at once that the idea of St. Peter's was to obtain a magnificent interior, and the exterior was a secondary idea; whereas at St. Paul's everything was sacrificed for external effect, and the interior seems to have been regarded as a matter of very inferior importance.

The entire external measurement of the dome of St. Peter's is 434 feet high; that of St. Paul's appears to be 350, though nearly every authority consulted gives it differently. Some make it 404 feet, others 365 feet, and others reduce it to 330 feet. In all probability these measurements are all correct, only are taken from different ground levels; 404 is probably the height above the bed of the river, and 330 the height from the floor of the church, whereas 365 may be the measurement from the floor of the crypt. As a rule, our English cathedrals are far less lofty than the continental ones; yet no one would venture to say that they are internally less impressive or less excellent as works of art. In architectural design mere size counts for little unless the genius of the architect knows how to make use of it.

THE DUTY OF SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY TO THE CHURCH OF TO-DAY.

BY PROFESSOR PFLEIDERER.

AN exceedingly valuable lecture, delivered by Professor Pfleiderer to the University of Berlin, on the strained relations which at present exist between the Church and scientific theology, is translated and reproduced in the Andover Review for March. The following are the main lines of argument in this very powerful lecture. The right of scientific theology, Professor Pfleiderer asserts in the Protestant Church stands or falls with the right of Protestantism itself. It is the legitimate heir of the Reformation, the protector of those principles peculiar to Protestantism, and the leader in the work, begun by the Reformers, but by no means finished, in the sixteenth century, of purifying the Church from the darkness and disfigurement of its faith and life. The experience which Luther had had in his own conscience of the powerlessness, on the one side, of ecclesiastical forms and ordinances, and of the powerfulness, on the other side, of the gospel of Christ as given to us in the Holy Scriptures, made his thought free from its previous bondage to ecclesiastical authority, and gave him the impulse to a free testing of ecclesiastical tradition. The right of scientific criticism, without which the Church of the Reformation could never have arisen, should not be questioned within that Church itself. The consequences of 'her principles, however, were not realised by the Reformation. The Church remained standing half within Catholicism, or fell back again into it, for reasons which lay partly in the outward condition of affairs and partly in the want of clearness on the part of the Reformers themselves as to the natural trend of their new thoughts. Men rightly placed the pure Word of God in the Scriptures over against the human word of ecclesiastical tradition; but then they overlooked, in the heat of the contest against Catholics and fanatics, this fact, that the Word of God is not entirely synonymous with all the words of the Bible, which itself was written by men. Thus was the free research of the religious spirit again put in bondage to an

outward authority, which often became quite as stringent

as that of the traditions of the old Church.

Professor Pfleiderer then proceeds to trace the doctrinal developments from the Reformation period down to the present day. Having done so, he asserts that the theology of to-day has no other wish than to carry forward the Reformation (which was begun in the sixteenth century) by nineteenth century means, and for present-day needs. It simply desires to purify Evangelical Christianity from the dross of Roman Catholicism which still clings to it.

It proposes to secure for religion and morality the right of appeal to the conscience which the Reformation demanded, to enlighten and quicken faith through knowledge and love, and to sanctify knowledge and love by faith. It wishes thereby to close up the fatal chasm which exists to-day between the convictions of the individual and the faith of the Christian Church as founded upon historical documents and traditions. That this is an important and a pressing problem, every one must admit; but that it cannot be solved easily or hastily is patent to all.

The difficulties of the problem are in some respects greater than in the time of the Reformation. Although the chasm which separated the Reformers from the old Church was great as regards practical conceptions and convictions of religious truth, they still retained the old theory of the world, which underlay the faith of the Church Fathers. Consequently the difficulty of retaining the whole array of ecclesiastical dogmas was, practically, not so great to their religious faith. It is quite otherwise now since the development of the natural sciences has so completely transformed our conception of the world.

Of no less significance is the progress that has recently been made in the science of history and of interpretation. While the ancients found no difficulty whatever in giving to the words of Holy Scripture that sense which would express their own dogmatic presuppositions and preferences, to us who have learned the true method of expounding ancient writings, such a procedure is entirely inadmissible. And while the ancients had no conception of historical development, and, therefore, saw no objection to reading into the earlier Biblical Writings ideas of later origin, we have learned the peculiarities of the various portions of the Bible, due to difference in time of composition and to individuality of authorship; we interpret each Writer in the light of his own time, taking account of his surroundings, and recognising the fact that the modes of thought and the character of belief were constantly changing in the course of Biblical history, as in the history of the world in general. Thus every one recognises that the attitude of the theologians of to day toward the Scriptures is an entirely different one from that of former times when the Scriptures were looked upon as a homogeneous whole, which had been transmitted complete as divine oracles.

But what does this transformation signify as regards religion and the Church? Is not the authority of the Holy Scriptures, the very foundation of our faith, thereby shattered and destroyed? And how, then, can faith asking, and sometimes it results in a passionate attack remain? Such questions anxious souls are often heard upon scientific theologians, as if these, out of pure wantonness and idle curiosity, had attacked the fortress of Faith. To these questions our reply is twofold; First: The changed attitude of scientific theology to-day toward the Bible and the belief of the Church is not the result of human free-will, but the necessary consequence of the. progress of scientific knowledge in general; and theology,. if it is true to its calling, dares not ignore this progress, but must thoughtfully revise its faith; and, second: This changed attitude of theology toward the Bible and toward

our belief really destroys nothing of value to our religious faith, but on the contrary frees it from burdensome and obscure elements, so that the final gain is greater than all the loss. The Scriptures, indeed, can no longer come to us as a collection of oracles, in which every word and letter is of infallible divine authority. We have learned to take account of the human side of them, have learned to estimate the historical circumstances and conditions under which each portion was produced; in short, we look upon the Bible as a book written for men and by men, but full of sublime, holy, and divine truth. Its religious value is thereby none the less, its power to awaken faith and to strengthen and build up is none the weaker.

Professor Pfleiderer concludes his lecture by asking: And what should we do to-day other than what the early Fathers and the Fathers of the Reformation did, namely, to seek to expound the priceless faith of the gospel in the language of our times, and to make it apprehensible to the present generation? We wish, therefore, "not to destroy, but to fulfil." We desire to do our part toward the more complete realisation of the words of the old prophet, "They shall all be taught of God;" and of the words of the Christ, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." To place before the eyes and to lay upon the hearts of the men of our day these eternal ideas and ideals of divine Truth, is the great duty of the Christian Church; and the stress is urgent as never before. But to fulfil this duty, to secure a hearing for this quickening, enlightening, reproving, comforting, and upbuilding Word, it is necessary that we should speak in the language of today, and preach the gospel, not in the mysterious formulas of the old Scholastics, but in that plain and comprehensible form, which shall sink into the hearts and consciences of our fellow-men, and make itself felt as saving, redeeming, and sanctifying Truth. To assist the Church in fulfilling its great mission at this time is the important duty of theological science; with her it remains to say, whether the armour and weapons, with which the Church could vanquish the powers of darkness of the day, shall be haughtily withheld and concealed. Woe to theology if she fail in this duty through indifference or fear! When the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? If the teachers of theology do not advance in the apprehension and understanding of the truths of salvation, how shall the Church be able to meet the demands of the times in which and upon which she must work? Let those who would for ever bind theologians to the formulas of the past, and who would have us return to the language of the Fathers, consider thoughtfully the words of the Apostle Paul: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man I have put away childish things;" and, "Brethren, be not children in mind: howbeit in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men” (1 Cor. xiii. 11; xiv. 20).

THE BISHOP OF RIPON ON MR. SPURGEON. It is very gratifying to read so generous a recognition of the merits of the great dissenting preacher from an episcopal pen as that which appears in the Contemporary Review for March. The Bishop of Ripon asserts in this article that Mr. Spurgeon's death is the loss of a personality and character whose influence ranged further than his hearers or his readers. He was a factor in the life of the Englishspeaking people. He was an Englishman possessed of the robust qualities of our race, and he held a position which was recognised (even by those who differed from him most widely in religion and politics) as a position to which he

was justly entitled, not because he was a Baptist, a Calvinist, a Nonconformist minister, but in virtue of those qualities which Englishmen have always delighted to honour energy, perseverance, courage, frankness of speech, singleness of purpose, independence of character, and faith in God. Time did not wear out his reputation; the light shone to the last. He had talent, but he had qualities without which talent is of little avail: he had what athletes would call staying power. He passed through the ordeal of the furore of early fame. A lighter character and a less stable soul might have been ruined by the popularity which met him on the threshold of his manhood. The prosperity of fools destroys them; but Mr. Spurgeon had the instinct of a strong nature. He knew that no man can produce great effects without hard work. He had won a reputation: he did more, he did the much harder thing, he maintained it. He was able to do so, because he recognised the law of hard work, and because he was wise enough not to be tempted out of his depth. Of his hard work little need be said. It is open to all to see that he did not offer to his people what cost him nothing. We are told how the late Rev. Mr. Denton noticed at the British Museum a gentleman who was constantly consulting the works of the Fathers and of other divines, and who proved to be Mr. Spurgeon's man, employed to ransack the divinity of the past for anecdotes or pulpit illustrations. The incident serves to show a determination to lay under tribute every source of light and help and not to rely upon old material only. It is the price to be paid for freshness; since what is old and stale to us seldom comes with freshness from our lips. It has been pointed out that there are three classes of men in the Christian Church. There are the men who may be described as intellectual, to whom the reconciliation of truth with truth is important. Erasmus may stand as the type. There are the men who seek to reconcile the world by the doctrines which they believe to be true. Luther and Knox belong to this class. There are the men whose chief thought is of the inward reconciliation of the spirit with the will and order of God. Of them Fénelon and Leighton are named as types. If we were to class Mr. Spurgeon we must place him among the men of action; he belongs more to the type of Luther than to that of Erasmus or Fénelon. He belongs to the class which produces strong leaders rather than strong thinkers -men of action, not men of contemplation. Each class has its range and its limitations; each has its message and its function. We may note their limitations without undervaluing their powers or their work. We live in an age in which, like children with their toys, we wish to pull things to pieces and see what they are made of. We ask ourselves how the trees can grow in Paradise, or how they can be rooted in a pavement of gold. We love analysis, and we wish to understand the way in which golden harps can be tuned. We wish to understand so much that little is left to imagination, and inspiration shows signs of perishing. To other men of simpler faith, these golden streets and golden harps meant the triumph of love and the music of the other world. There was very real joy in the presence of God, and the angels who sang His praise were real beings. Perhaps it is better to have a faith such as this, even though allied to what the world calls narrowness, than to open our minds so widely that in the chaos and confusion of ideas which follow we lose faith altogether. But better still, I think it would be if, as Dean Stanley said, we could combine the spirit and method of Erasmus with the energy of Luther and Knox, and the repose of Fénelon and Leighton. Who shall say that it is foolish to dream of a time when we may see in the Church of Christ the intellectual sincerity of Bishop Fraser conjoined with the saintliness of Keble and the sturdy faith of Mr. Spurgeon?