The first four chapters are given to an historical survey. In the First and Second chapters the doctrine of the soul is traced through the Religions of the Savages and through the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The most extreme Animism is accepted and some zeal is shown in the warm commendation of the conclusions of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy. In the third chapterChristian Europe Up to Kant-in the short paragraph devoted to Duns Scotus the fundamental presupposition of the book is uncovered in the "will to believe". The Fourth chapter, which is a survey of "The Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century" relative to the subject in hand, is the most interesting of all but even here we are confronted with the inability of the writer to distinguish between the flickerings of the flame of the "hell-fire" sermons and the abandonment of the Christian Doctrine of Immortality. There is manifest comfort in the effort to destroy the validity and minimize the significance of consciousness. The chapter accomplishes only this personal confession with which it closes: "What I do feel is that there is a strong presupposition against the belief in personal immortality; and apart from some belief in Christianity or Theism, I fail to see that there can be any strong presumption for it".

With the close of the Fourth Chapter interest wanes. The Fifth Chapter "The Bearing of Science" must have been a disappointment even to the writer. Consciousness is conjectured to be the "Inward personal experience of certain molecular changes in the brain". We are led through much of scientific statement and metaphysical inquiry to the conclusion, as far as the chapter has one, that the difficulties require us to abolish sex, and that Spiritualism and Psychical Research offer the only haven for those who believe in Personal Immortality. Mr. Haynes seems quite assured that the cycle of the religious begins in Animism and ends in Spiritualism. The chapter on Psychical Research and Spiritualism presents nothing startling except the conclusion which is, "That those who really want to be convinced resort to the Spiritualist more than to the Priest and thereby get a better run for the money". If the positive element in the Current Argument were no stronger than is to be inferred from the chapter on the subject the contention would not be worth while. On the other hand, however, there is little in the chapter which would distress even the weaker brother. The Ethical Conclusion deals chiefly with rewards and punishments. The conclusion of the whole matter is in support of that "sort of immortality" which "belongs passively to everything".

In a word the futile effort of the book stands as its own refutation. The book bears no evidence of marked scholarship. Its chief commendation lies in its array of negative material. The whole treatment is vitiated by the constant insinuation and sometimes open charge of insincerity of all those alike,-whether philosopher, theologian, or intelligent Christian-who believe in Personal Immortality. Only the ignorant may sincerely hold to Personal Immortality is the author's position.

Princeton.

C. M. CANTRALL.

Evolution and the Need of Atonement. By STEWART A. MCDOWALL, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge; Assistant Master at Winchester College. Cambridge: At the University Press. 1912.

Some years ago it was feared that Evolution, with its explanation of the method by which the earth came to be as it is, made entirely unnecessary the concept of a Creator of all. The early writers confused an explanation of method with a statement of source. Since then we have come to realize that evolution originates nothing; that it only greatly increases the need of a Creator since it implies above all else the working out of a great and exceedingly complex purpose through very many and very marvelous means. Unless an evolutionist deliberately refuses to think he is confronted by the inevitable questions as to the source of the evolution which he sees and as to its ending. If all the confusing voices that at one time deafened the ear of the scientific inquirer are now to be brought into harmony through this great doctrine their very harmony demands an adequate explanation. Mechanism demands a mechanic and the greater and more perfect the mechanism the greater and more pressing must be the demand for an adequate explanation. Thus the Christian Theologian can well see in the general acceptance of evolution by men of the scientific mind a splendid foundation on which he can build in interpreting to them the truths that lie above and behind the processes that appear in

nature.

A great difficulty has however arisen. If we grant that God made the world and that He planned it and finally when the time was right brought forth man, it then seems logical to regard all man's progress since his creation as a steady march God-wards and therefore to deny the older view of the effect of sin on the race and of the need of the Atonement. Many evolutionary theologians therefore have come to regard sin as a necessary evil appearing during the progress of mankind. They argue that it will be outgrown in time. Manifestly the need of the Atonement is denied and the work of Jesus becomes that of a Teacher and not of a Saviour. It is this situation that Mr. McDowall's book seeks to meet. How well he succeeds can only be realized by those who read it.

It would not be fair to the author to try to outline his argument in the short space of this review. But it is so clear, so scientific, and so satisfying that it is worthy of careful thought and study. His definition of sin at first sounds strange to one brought up on the Shorter Catechism but upon analysis it is found to be identical with the earlier definition. His view of evolution is inspiring and his conclusion as to the need of the Atonement seems sound.

Perhaps to some the force of the argument may be impaired by the author's manifest sympathy with Bergson's philosophy, yet its effectiveness really does not depend on this. It is also rather unfortunate that a chapter on the "Christian Thought on the Atonement" breaks in so sharply on the course of the argument. This chapter accomplishes little and seems to weaken the final conclusion.

Mr. McDowall does not claim to understand how the Atonement

works. He is only concerned in showing its need. That he does so is the opinion of the reviewer. Cranford, N. J.

GORDON M. RUSSELL.

The Book Without A Name. Chiefly on Naturism, or the Religion of Science. Compiled in Dixieland. By ORAN CATELLEU. London, E. C. C. W. Daniel, Ltd., 3 Amen Corner. 1913.

"God made men upright; but they have sought out many inventions." This volume is one of them and one of the most foolish. It is possible to present Pantheism logically and to treat it as a religion in a natural manner. Here we have Pantheism but no real knowledge of Science and no logical argument. In place of argument is arrogant dogmatism. The book is full of bitter criticisms of Christianity, which continually reveal a shallow knowledge of what Christianity really is and the possession by the so-called "seeker" of a mortal grudge against the church and against all ministers. It claims to have been written in a little town in the South and reflects just such a bigoted spirit in its hatred of all things Northern.

It will do no one any good to read it. It can also do no harm to any one who is able to think seriously. Cranford, N. J.

GORDON M. RUSSELL.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Light of To-day. By ELBERT RUSSELL, Professor in Earlham College. Author of "The Parables of Jesus". Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company. 1909. Pp. III. 60 cents net.

Our attention was directed to this book by seeing it on the library table of a parishioner's home. The title was certainly captivating. "Jesus of Nazareth,-in the light of to-day". It was precisely the Jesus many were curious to see. We wondered what this twentieth century Nazarene would be like. In the preface the author says his aim is "to show Jesus in his saving truth and power to those who may be alienated from the Christ of past generations" (p. 4). It is "the twentieth century Christ" for "the twentieth century man", and the twentieth century man is the man "who thinks in terms of the evolutionary philosophy, who presupposes the commonly accepted results of the historical and literary criticism of the Bible" (pp. 9-10).

While the treatment is in some respects helpful, we have found it for the most part disappointing. Not the least defect is its brevity. A book with such a pretentious title surely deserves a more thorough and self-defensible discussion. Whoever would give the Christ of the twentieth century thinker will have to devote more space and development to his portraiture than Professor Russell has done, or he will face the peril of misrepresenting both the thinker and the thinker's Christ.

The bulwark of Christ's mission was His teaching (Ch. 6). To this is applied the evolutionary test of the survival of the true: in His view of the kingdom of God ("the universal family"), the historic Israel, His ability to convince, to satisfy permanent human needs.

Chapter XI passes on to His personality. The Jesus of the modern thinker is a religious genius (Ch. 2), sinless (p. 14), original (Ch. 3), an intellectual giant (p. 88), the human manifestation of God (p. 110). The soteriological aspect of Jesus has not received the attention one could wish. At the close Professor Russell assures us that "any adequate explanation of Jesus must be virtually the explanation of his first interpreters" (p. 110).

Langhorne, Pa.

BENJAMIN F. PAIST, JR.

The Crown of Hinduism. By J. N. FARQUHAR, M.A. Oxford University Press: Humphrey Milford. 1913. Pp. 469. $2.50 net. This is an unusual book showing great range of research and is patiently wrought. It evidences a voluminous knowledge of Hindu history, teaching, and philosophy and a first hand penetrating appreciation of the Hindu mind. The author does not assume, let us say, that the occidental reader has any knowledge of Hinduism nor that the Hindu has any considerable knowledge of Christian teaching. This makes the book unnecessarily full and, because of the arrangement of the material some descriptions and arguments are repeated. From the viewpoint of American and European readers much of New Testament quotation and Christian teaching might well have been omitted. From the viewpoint of the Hindu much of the discussion of Hinduism might better have been left out. Presumably the purpose of the volume is apologetic and is intended for the educated Hindu reader. It is calculated to confirm the faith of the Christian Indian and to present an unanswerable argument to the Hindu. It is an attempt to discover and define the relation subsisting between Hinduism and Christianity. The line of approach is that of similarity rather than that of contrast. It is just at this point and in this particular that one hesitates to approve the method of the book. It ill becomes one who is not cognizant, from personal experience, with the Hindu mind to pronounce against the method for it may be the best to use. The conciliatory approach no doubt receives the first if not the most lasting consideration.

One thing is evident, Mr. Farquhar always has in mind Hinduism as a practical religion. To the Hindu willing to read such a book it ought to prove itself a fascinating study of the similarities to be found in the two religions. One must confess, however, that there will not be a considerable fascination for the occidental reader. On page 55 of the Introduction one sees for the first time just what is in the author's mind and that discovery lodges the suggestion of a suspicion which persists. To have Christianity presented as "The Crown of Hinduism" is not a specially pleasing thought. To present Christianity as if it were made to order to specially fit at once the highest eminences and the darkest defects of Hinduism surely weakens the claims of Christianity. It is not only highly distasteful but a distinct failure to grasp his essential dignity to speak of Jesus as studiously avoiding this or that inconsistency. Why not say of Christianity "Here is a religion of strength and power as contrasted with the

weakness of Hinduism, a religion of life and light as over against the darkness and endless deaths of Hinduism. Jesus Christ hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light. He has robbed service of its servility and death of its sting."

The method of the book as expressed in the title and pursued throughout is its one glaring defect. If by "The Crown of Hinduism" it is intended merely that Christianity gives the only answer to the cry of the Hindu soul, then there can be no serious objection to the use of the title in such connection, since religions of all kinds and degrees of merit, and much that is scarcely recognized as religion at all, may be regarded as the cry of the soul after God. Surely we all believe Jesus Christ is the only answer alike for Hindu and Hottentot as well as for the most finished product of the highest civilization. But if the title is to be taken in this broad view it loses all special fitness and ceases to be adequate, and we feel the need of the material being organized under another head. Christianity is not the "Crown of Hinduism" in any such sense as the New Testament is the Crown of the Old Testament. There is no seed in Hinduism with all its hard injustices and its intellectual absurdities which could produce the results of Christianity. Hinduism's only possible attitude toward Christianity is that of the suppliant seeking a spiritual salvation—the freedom and liberty which is in Christ. It may not be questioned whether it is best to present Christianity merely as something to be introduced into Hinduism. Such a view does not inspire confidence. Christianity is always, and of necessity, revolutionary both in its message and in its method.

What can there be in common between Christianity and a religion in which there is confusion of substance in an identity of self with God, and which says (p. 223) “I am Brahman"? Men stumble over the way in which Jesus identified Himself with the Father. How much more difficult is the attained deity of Hinduism. It is very different from Paul's "Christ liveth in me", which utterance, as if for fear of its being misunderstood, Paul hastens to define more carefully thus, "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me". But we are also told (p. 420) that "in all the sects man's spirit is no longer the supreme Spirit whole and undivided but an amsa or portion of God". This newer view may save personality to God but it leaves no room for man's personality, and the problem is as inexplicable as before. This is surely a far cry from the Christian doctrine.

We find (p. 247) some working definitions. "Austerity is the endurance of pain in order to gain pleasure, power, or some other material end." "Asceticism on the other hand is the endurance of pain or the giving up of comforts in order to gain moral or spiritual ends." Quite acceptable definitions, but when later (p. 537) it is asserted that "Jesus fulfils the Indian ascetic ideal" one's sense of fitness revolts. Mr. Farquhar doubtless appreciated this; for he immediately qualifies the statement by showing that Jesus was unlike the monk in that the suffering was not self-inflicted. This does not fully satisfy for it puts