ing, so is modern life. The two are based upon the same conditions, namely, a failure to make the spiritual view of the world prevail, to make the impulses and the values of a spiritual nature dominate the distracting and materialistic tendencies of the times.

The task of meeting the problem of modern life, therefore, falls not a little upon the bearers of philosophical tradition. Philosophy cannot afford to become "scientific," since this means to adopt the methods and viewpoint of science. Whatever may be said against philosophy as personal insight, what, it may be asked, does the world need quite as much as insight? The only pity is that there is not adequate insight, or that the insight of philosophy could not have made its influence more effective in the world. There may be methods of bringing about this result but the way out is not for philosophy to forsake its own method and viewpoint and adopt that of science, attempting to gain its end by piece-meal work. The problem for philosophy is the problem of life, and life is totality. This is really the problem of making the insight of the race prevail. And philosophers have been notable contributors to this result.

We seek, then, a secure basis for the values of life, for human life itself, in fact. The present crisis in civilization, in which the highest values are placed in jeopardy, raises the question of the actual existence of a permanent basis of life. Have the spiritual resources of our time. been exhausted? The question is purely speculative for we cannot know. We only know that the race has passed through periods when the values were apparently lost only to reappear in a new environment. The spiritual vitality of the race itself seems to be inexhaustible. As we survey the present world we cannot believe, despite the evidences of moral defeat and incapacity, that our own civilization is doomed. But we cannot rationally hope to save the

best in our life unless adequate methods are found by which the spiritual impulse of the peoples may be brought to function. Perhaps the only adequate stimulus is a cause, the cause of humanity itself, of our spiritual heritage. For this cause the peoples, if they could only see it, would make further sacrifices. Unfortunately the necessary moral leadership seems lacking though it may yet

appear.

The source of human values is the spiritual impulse, their existence the result of the functioning of this impulse in the human environment. It may be that this impulse, and life itself, are incapable of definition. But this at least seems clear: life not only is but possesses, as it appears in human beings, a bias of a specific quality, which, by reason of its fruits, we call spiritual. These fruits are the values and they have been judged to be, on the basis of the best insight of the race, the most inclusively significant character of the real. Being the most significant character of reality value possesses objectivity. These values have been won by the race. Did the race also create them? Perhaps the distinction is unreal. For if it is said that the values have been produced by the creative activity of human beings it can be answered that the creative activity itself is a form of the spiritual impulse. And the human quality of life is also a result of the functioning of this impulse. Thus to say that the values are human, or that they are the product of human activity may not affect their objective character. And if the race could answer we should find that that which is the most significant in the values is that they are not merely human, but that they belong to the very character of the world as a spiritual reality. This faith in the objective character of the values of life is, in addition, an important factor in their achievement and preservation. It is still an important factor, for if the peoples lose their faith in the

reality of the ideal serious consequences will follow. This belief is not, however, sufficient merely as a faith. The philosopher must give to this ancient and honored conviction a rational basis. This is after all the traditional task of philosophy.

Book Reviews

THE RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By ALBERT C. KNUDSON, Professor in Boston University School of Theology. The Abingdon Press, New York, 1920. Pp. 416. Price $2.50 net.

A necessary element in a well-rounded consideration of the religious teaching of the Old Testament is a philosophical mind and preparation. These are evident in a marked degree in this book.

There is no slavish following of some theory of criticism such as has often been exhibited in this field. Yet there is toleration and a fair presentation of the leading theories.

One is made to feel that after all the important thing is not the pursuit of a theory, but the grasping of the living element in the inspired message. The importance of judging by life is made clear by the author in the very beginning when he grounds authority in experience. He says:

"In the religious realm the final test of truth is not to be found in any absolute objective authority, whether church or Bible, but in experience. If the Bible finds us at greater depths of our being than any other book, if it enriches our lives and inspires us to heroic service, if it makes God real to us, we have in that fact a sufficient evidence of its inspiration." We need no doctrine of infallibility to assure us of its truth." (p. 22.)

Dr. Knudson shows the muddled condition of criticism that grows out of the determination to make biblical development conform to a theory of strict evolution. Such a standpoint shows a wholesome reaction from recent tendencies to overlook the facts of life in the pursuit of the evolutionary dream. The unique survival of Israel's religion over national disaster is held to be due to the highly ethical and universal content given it by the prophets. Personality in God is considered fundamental to religion as it is likewise to the highest category of our own existence. If this be anthropomorphism he is willing to accept the challenge, for by personality he means Bowne's definition, "self-hood, self-consciousness, self-control and the power to know."

The thought of the unity of Yaweh enabled Israel to keep out many of the immoral practices of the heathen. It prepared the way for the internationalism of the Eighth century prophets by providing a conception of God sufficiently universal to be applied to existing political conditions. The resulting monotheism grew out of the life needs of the people.

"The imperious heart of the Hebrew could tolerate no fundamental dualism or pluralism in his view of the universe. Its demand for an ultimate unity was as insistent as was the Greek intellect. But while the latter gave us a unity that aimed simply to satisfy the mind's demand for an ultimate explanation of the world, the former gave us a unity that met the demands of life as a whole, a unity to which heart, conscience and intellect might adoringly turn and say, 'Thy kingdom come and thy will be done.' It is then no surprise that the monotheistic faith of the Hebrews rather than the monistic philosophy of the Greeks finally conquered the civilized world" (92).

Of the biblical doctrine of sin he says:

"Sin is a positive act or state of hostility to God. It is not an 'unreality or illusion,' as Spinoza would have us believe; nor is it as Hegel teaches, 'An essential moment in the progressive or eternally realized life of God; nor is it, as some evolutionists tell us, simply a relic of the animal nature which we have inherited. Not even Kant's conception of evil as 'the perversion of the right relation between reason and sense, the false subordination of the rational to the sensuous,' fills out the biblical idea of sin" (255-6).

In the chapter on the Messianic hope, the author calls attention to the over-strenuous criticism which would give all eschatological passages a late date. There is a large measure of justice in his criticism. It should not, however, be overlooked that early traces of the eschatological spirit are not inconsistent with the appearance of a larger body of eschatological writing in times of special storm and stress. Eschatology becomes a dominating motif as we say in music when hope is forced to turn to dreams of revolution when real revolution becomes at the same time more desirable and more impossible. There seems to be a historical connection, which probably Dr. Knudson would not deny, between the eschatological temper and political change just as the late war gave a popular impetus to the doctrines of millennialism. The eschatological temper is essentially that of present spiritual futility.