the science the conclusion that such an event must presently occur; and by the same process the consequences of particular acts of legislation have been repeatedly foretold.

There are signs of the awakening among our citizens of a more generous spirit than has sometimes prevailed; a willingness to labor for the public good without hope of material reward. It is most earnestly to be desired that this disposition be wisely directed. Whoever supposes that the science of political economy, as developed in England, has no lessons for Americans, will find after fruitless wanderings that he has deprived himself of a most trustworthy guide. If we are to be spared the evils of mistaken reform, the repetition of the blunders of other nations and the perils of socialism, it will not be because of the unaided wisdom of our people or their legislators. We need statesmen who can teach as having authority. We need workers who have not only enthusiasm but intelligence-men and women who have not only a desire for the improvement of mankind, but also clear notions of what the desired improvement is, and how it is to be brought about.

The common people of our country are only beginning to be aware of the power that they can wield by combination. They have nearly lost the feeling of loyalty to the wealthy classes, under the growing conviction that these classes have molded the economic legislation of the country to suit their own interests. This legislation having been in defiance of most of the conclusions of the science of political economy, it now becomes a serious question whether, instead of blaming this science for the evils caused by disregarding its principles, it will not be better to try the experiment of legislating in accordance with them. If this question be answered in the negative, our wellto-do citizens may reasonably expect to witness before long some legislative experiments of a different and more alarming character.

ARTICLE IX.—PROF. HARRIS' “PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THEISM."

The Philosophical Basis of Theism, an examination of the personality of man to ascertain his capacity to know and serve God, and the validity of the principles underlying the defense of theism. By SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the Theological Department of Yale College. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883. pp. 564.

SEVERAL treatises on Theism have recently appeared. Among them are "Studies in Theism," by Professor B. P. Bowne, and "The Theistic Argument," by Professor J. L. Diman. The former is a series of papers upon philosophical themes bearing upon the theistic problem, written in criticism of the methods and conclusions of materialism and agnosticism. They are learned and acute and have a special interest as foreshadowing the idealistic philosophy of their author which he has, since their publication, so elaborately defended in his "Metaphysics." Professor Diman's book is a series of lectures delivered to a mixed audience in which in a most felicitous style, and with comprehensive views, he discusses the bearing of recent scientific discoveries and theories upon the argument for Theism. The volume is marked throughout by the historical spirit and exactness which were so characteristic of its author.

The book whose title heads this Article differs from each of these in method and aim. It is larger and much more exhaustive. It is the outgrowth of a course of class-room lectures and therefore naturally enters minutely into proof of its positions and the refutation of objections. It is especially rich in illus trations drawn from the various authors who have treated the same questions, and from general literature. Opinions that are refuted are set forth in the most exact and strategic statements of their defenders. There is thus a large historical element in the book. Under every topic there is not only an analysis and defense of the author's view, but a statement of opposite views and a review of objections.

The work is not strictly a treatise on Theism. It is rather a treatise on Mental Philosophy. The author holds that Theism stands or falls with the principles of a sound Psychology. These principles constitute the philosophical basis of Theism. Dr. Harris, in his class-room, follows this preliminary course of lectures by another on the evidences that God exists, in which the principles which are defended in this treatise are applied. The purpose and content of the book are well foreshadowed in these words:

"And when he [the Christian] asks, Why am I a theist? he is forced back on questions which reach to the profoundest depths of human thought. Among these are questions as to the reality, the processes and the possible sphere of human knowledge; the principles and laws of thought; the capacity of man to know God; the distinction between empirical science, philosophy and theology, and their necessary harmony; the basis and nature of moral distinctions and of moral law and government; the capacity of man as a free agent to be a subject of moral government and to love, trust, and obey God; the distinction of the personal and the impersonal, the natural and the supernatural, spirit and matter; the real existence of personal beings and the materialistic objections thereto; the synthesis of the personal with the absolute; the reality of the two systems, the physical and the moral, and their harmony and unity in the universe of God." (p. 2.)

These are precisely the questions which are discussed in the volume.

Professor Harris holds that the knowledge of God begins in experience, but that since man is rational and reflective, he can not rest content in his spontaneous belief, but is forced to seek for rational grounds for it. This seems to us the true position. It is well to emphasize the moral grounds of theistic belief; to recognize the fact that it is upon occasion of the spontaneous religious feelings that this belief first springs into consciousness, but if we are to defend Theism we must go beyond and beneath this life of feeling and find a solid ground for our faith in the principles of reason. It is not enough to describe the causes of this belief; we must discover and defend its grounds. It is not sufficient to trace its origin; we must maintain its authority. Recognizing this as the task of the defender of Theism, our author has entered upon a thorough examination of man's power to know with a view of showing not merely that God can be known, but that he is the presupposition of all knowl

edge and all thought, the ground of the possibility of rationality, freedom, and personality in man.

As we have said, the volume before us is chiefly occupied with defining and defending the rationality, freedom, and personality of man, and not with furnishing direct proofs of Theism. But constantly throughout the work, the theistic conclusions necessarily involved in rational principles are pointed out, and the author's method of theistic defence is clearly discerned. Under the proposition, that the mind can not rest content save in the comprehending of the universe under the unity of a rational system, he says:

"The ultimate problem of thought is to find the unity of the all in a rational system. This unity is possible only in the recognition of a personal God. The mind can not find the ground or cause of all that begins and changes in that which itself begins and changes, but only beyond in the Absolute Being who never begins but is eternally the same. It can not find the sufficient reason or rationale of things in the facts of experience, but only in their accordance with principles, laws, ideals and ends which are eternal in Reason absolute, perfect and supreme. For if these are not eternal in the absolute ground of the universe, they are not in the universe at all, and the scientific and philosophical knowledge of the universe as a rational system is forever impossible." (p. 83).

Speaking of the reality of intuitive knowledge, he says:

"If this knowledge (of being and of personal being) is not real, then reason breaks down in contradictions and knowledge is impossible; if this knowledge of being and of personal being is real, then reason is in harmony with itself and trustworthy in all its utterances. Therefore, the reality of being, of personal being and impersonal, and of absolute being is involved in the very essence of rationality. Rationality cannot legitimately develop itself without recognizing their reality, but breaks down in unreason." (p. 133.)

"The validity of these principles (of reason) as real knowledge involves the existence of a supreme reason in which they are essential, eternal and supreme. It is essential to the possibility of rational intelligence that the principles and norms which are constituent and essential in the reason of man, be also constituent and essential in Reason that is eternal, unchanging, supreme and universally regulative." "If what we necessarily regard as universal truths and laws regulating all thought and power and thus the basis of the possibility of science, are not eternal in the Supreme Reason, then they are not universal truths and laws, but are subjective and transitory impressions in the senseintelligence of a man and knowledge is impossible." (p. 144.)

From the many lines of argument in the book, we select a few points for further notice.

1. The leading idea of the book is that of the supremacy of reason. This has been partially illustrated. This conception is set in the strongest light in such statements as this: "The existence of reason, universal, unconditioned and supreme, the same everywhere and always, never in contradiction to the ultimate principles regulative of all human thought, the ultimate ground of the universe, and ever energizing in it, is essential to all scientific knowledge, the keystone of the arch of all rational thought."

That reason is supreme in the universe, in man and in the ethical nature of God, is the fundamental assumption, the necessary postulate of all thought. If reason is not regnant and authoritative in man, the possibility of all knowledge is precluded. If it is so, then its changeless, authoritative principles must have a changeless and authoritative ground; that is, there must be a Supreme and Absolute Reason who is the source of the rational principles in finite, created man. The great stress of Dr. Harris' book is laid upon this grand idea that the rationality of man presupposes a higher Reason and that man by virtue of his reason is constituted capable of knowing this Higher Reason. In a word, the author examines the constitu tion of man and shows it to be such as not only to enable him to know God, but such as to require God's existence as the adequate cause of that constitution.

This idea of the supremacy of reason seems to us to furnish the most forcible construction of the theistic argument, and we have never seen it developed so clearly and strongly as in this book. Some have said that the belief in God is an intuition; others that it is the result of argument or inference; others that it is the spontaneous product of the religious feeling. Dr. Harris says that "the idea of God is involved in the very essence of rationality." (p. 133). If this position can be established, Theism can defy all attacks. If it can be shown that the existence of the Supreme Reason is involved in the very principles and laws by which we know and think, the battle with agnosticism and atheism is won. Professor Harris has conducted his defense on this line with great ability and, we