ing the inscription: "The gift of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of York".78

These curious proceedings, from which no appeal was taken, did not change the irregular status of Hymnody, but they certainly discouraged further legal contests. In 1822 H. J. Todd, of the York diocese, published a pamphlet,79 urging the sole authority of the old Psalmody; in 1820 the Bishop of Peterborough charged against the liberty exercised by parishes in introducing hymn books, 80 in which he was followed by the Bishop of Killaloe, Ireland, in 1821.81 But in general the ground was regarded as cleared of practical obstructions, and the making of new hymn books proceeded apace in the years following the York settlement.

In these books the influence of Cotterill's, in spite of its suppression, is very marked. Though somewhat on earlier lines, it was a fresh selection, at which the poet Montgomery assisted. And it had the distinction of introducing into church use some fifty of his Hymns, thus contributing to the permanent enrichment of Hymnody. In the interests, real or supposed, of the "good taste" at which Cotterill aimed, Montgomery also altered freely the texts of his predecessors. As Cotterill's Selection served as a source book for numerous succeeding compilers, it happened that these tinkered texts frequently remained the standard till very recent times, in some cases to the present day.

We may now regard Hymn singing in the Church of England as having passed the stage of intrusion and even of toleration, and to have reached that of substantial recognition. It had not superseded the singing of metrical Psalms but had reduced the Psalter to a selection of Psalms, with which Hymns were incorporated on equal footing. As to its prevalence we have the testimony of the editors of the Buckden Selection: "There are, perhaps, not many large

"Observations upon the metrical version of the Psalms, London, F. C. & J. Rivington, 1822.

congregations in our national Church, where some Psalms, different from the old and new versions, and some Hymns, founded upon the history and doctrines of the Gospel, have not been admitted." More authoritative was the assumption of the Chancellor at York that no one having the interests of religion at heart would wish to disturb "the prevalent usage", "so edifying and acceptable to congregations".

This change had found its opportunity here, as elsewhere, in the decadence and indifference into which the old Psalmody had fallen. It had been brought about, first by the desire of musical improvement and for the recognition of church festivals and fasts, but mainly by the "enthusiasm" of the Evangelical Revival, and the persistence of the Evangelical Party within the Church.82 The practice of Hymn singing had passed beyond the limits of party, but had not as yet brought itself into close relation with the Prayer Book system. The supply of hymn books was copious, and their very diversity had already suggested the need (not yet filled) of a collection of Hymns compiled and issued under competent authority.83 The Hymnody itself bore the marks (never yet obliterated) of its Evangelical origin in its general non-sectarian character, its dealings with individual experience, and its mingling together of the work of churchman and dissenter. Philadelphia.

LOUIS F. BENSON.

$9 The valuable introduction to Hymns Ancient and Modern, Historical Edition, 1909, appears to the present writer to ignore the main agency of the Evangelicals within the Church in introducing Hymnody, and to transfer it to the musical development of London Charities.

REVIEWS OF

RECENT LITERATURE

PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE

An Introduction to Philosophy. By ORLIN OTTMAN FLETCHER, Professor of Philosophy in Furman University. New York: The Macmillan Company. 8vo; pp. xxii, 420. 1913.

It is often said that the present age is too practical to have any taste for metaphysical inquiry. Such, however, can hardly be the case in view of the number and the quality of the works on metaphysics and closely related subjects that are being published. Of this trend in modern thought a striking illustration is the fact that the Macmillan Company have issued very recently no fewer than five such volumes, The World We Live In, by George Stuart Fullerton, A First Book in Metaphysics, by Walter Marvin, A Brief History of Modern Philosophy, by Harold Höffding, The New Realism, by six prominent professors, and The Persistent Problems of Philosophy, by Mary Whiton Calkins, all of which, taken together, would seem to indicate that the age is becoming so truly practical as to appreciate the unique importance of the foundations of its intellectual life. And now a sixth, the book under review, is added to the above list.

Nor is it the least as well as the last of the works referred to. Like them, it is characterized by fullness of information, by definiteness of aim, and by clearness and felicity of style. In these respects, if not in all others, the new metaphysics marks a great advance on the old. Like Professor Marvin, Professor Fletcher has "a philosophical doctrine, and that doctrine determines the treatment given the questions and opinions which are considered". His "point of view is that of Objective Idealism". He holds that appearances are reality as we see it. He conceives of reality in its epistemological relation as "being with meaning"; in its ontological relation as "active being". In a word, he regards reality as "cognizable and immanently active". He also distinguishes between a "totality" and a "true whole". A totality, being an aggregation, lacks the oneness which is essential to a unitary whole. In dealing with the categories, he follows a "pedagogical order"; but he appreciates the reason which may be advanced in favor of presenting them in the logical order of their development. The reviewer finds himself in substantial agreement with Professor Fletcher. Indeed, the latter's "Objective Idealism" does not in the least suggest Schelling to him; but on the contrary, it does strongly remind him of what he learned from his old preceptor, Dr. McCosh, under the name of "Natural Realism". Not the least of the merits of Professor Fletcher's book is its outspoken theism. Its closing words are: "The acceptance of the reality of the one God, personal and supreme, a God with whom

man may have communion, is a demand of the religious consciousness. Hence, we retain as an article of philosophic faith, our belief that God, the Perfect Personality, the Absolute Individual, is, and is the ground of being and activity. 'In Him we live and move and have our being.""

There are only two points at which the reviewer cares to raise a question:

1. Is Professor Fletcher correct in his understanding of the Absolute of Hegel? He denies that it is pure thought and would make it include willing and feeling. We are inclined to the belief, however, that Weber is right when he says that, "according to Hegel, the Absolute is idea, thought, reason, and nothing but that" (Hist. of Phil., p. 534).

2. While the ablest chapters in the book seem to us to be those on "Human Freedom," we can not agree with Professor Fletcher in what we take to be his doctrine of the self-determination of the will. We recognize in it a great improvement on the old doctrine of the indifference of the will, but we feel that it still falls short of the truth. The fact is that while the choices of the will confirm character, the character determines the will in the sense that it reveals itself in it. In a word, character and will, as also our author claims, must not be separated. The will is the expression of the character: the character is the soul of the will. The person, as consisting of character and will, determines himself. We do not form or "organize" our character out of the self: the will or self is the character expressing itself in choice. We are free because we are not determined from outside but are determined by ourselves.

Princeton.

WILLIAM BRENTON GREENE, Jr.

The Philosophy of the Future. By S. S. HEBBERD, Author of "Philosophy of History", "The Secret of Christianity", "The Science of Thought", etc. New York: Maspeth Publishing House, 77 Milton Street, Borough of Queens. 1911. Pp. 251.

Mr. Hebberd's volume is an antidote to Prof. K. Pearson's Grammar of Science, published simultaneously (Pt. I., 3rd ed.). The Philosophy of the Future, which has cost the author "more than half a century of toil", is a stout defense of the principle of Causation both against the philosophical scientists who, following Hume, would reduce cause to customary sequence among our sense-impressions, and against the subordination by many writers on logic of the notion of cause to that of reason or ground. To cancel causality is to efface all distinction between truth and falsehood. Scientia est cognoscere causas. "The sole essential function of all thinking is to discriminate between cause and effect." "There is no known form of thought which is not ultimately reducible into an assertion of cause and effect." From the vantage ground of this theorem, with its corollary that “a cause cannot be known except through its effects, or an effect apart from its cause", Mr. Hebberd trains his guns upon the systems of Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, and other logical writers. He reviews successively Space, Time, the Concept, Judgment, and finally In

duction, defined as "the discovery of causal processes by means of physical and mental experiment", in the attempt to show that all catagories are but species and derivative forms under the supreme and all-embracing category of causality.

The logical discussion is followed by chapters on God, Freedom and the Soul, in which the metaphysical application of his principles is made. The causal concept is utilized to strengthen the ontological argument. "The conception of a sufficient cause, fully understood, is identical with the theistic conception of God." This conception of a sufficient cause involves unity, infinitude, freedom and love (if an infinite being acts at all, or causes any changes, it must be for the sake of others). The fact again that the causal nexus is "a reality imperceptible to the senses" discredits materialism and positivism, and is used in demonstration of the existence and immortality of the soul. Mr. Hebberd attempts no exact definition of cause, but this, as he says in the appendix, is because he regards it as incapable of ordinary definition, "there being no wider genus under which it can be ranged as a species" (p. 214). He omits also any discussion of the origin of the causal concept. While frequently inveighing against innate ideas and Kantian apriorities, and rejecting impartially "the Scottish philosophy of 'common sense', with its short and easy method of 'intuitions', the French and English empiricism, the Teutonic illusionism" (p. 95), he yet declares: "Man does come into the world equipped, not with intuitions, but with the means of attaining to an assured knowledge of the world as the workmanship of an infinite and benevolent Being. For he comes endowed with the prerogative of thought; but to think is to affirm causality" (p. 157). What is this but intuitionism?

Mr. Hebberd's work, it will be seen, is a discussion at once ambitious and concise of the deepest problems of logic and metaphysics. His book, in our judgment, is well worth the attention of the philosophical reader, who cannot but enjoy its incisive style, its trenchant criticisms, its wide outlook upon philosophic thought, and its original insights into its problems.

Lincoln University, Pa.

WM. HALLOCK JOHNSON.

APOLOGETICAL THEOLOGY

Comparative Religion. By F. B. JEVONS, Litt.D., Professor of Philosophy in the University of Durham. Cambridge: at the University Press. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1913. 12mo.; pp. vii, 154.

One of the Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature, this little book does not aim to be more than a primer of Comparative Religion; but, as might be supposed from the author's previous works in this general department, An Introduction to the History of Religion, most favorably reviewed in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. ix, No. 33, and An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion, as