correlate the new point of view with social institutions so dear to the old but dying religion. The result was that the old narrow civic type of religion was broken down and there grew up in its place an inner, mystical, individual, "universal" type which deprived the world of social institutions of its old moral and spiritual meaning. There were two separate worlds, the inner, "universal" kingdom of the "spirit," what St. Augustine later called the City of God, and the kingdom of this world, the Roman Empire.

Greek philosophy, the mystery religions, and the larger moral thought of the world, had outgrown the old boundaries of the religion of the family and the state. But the only power to carry out these or any other ideas into public practice was in the hands of the Roman Empire. The Greek city-states and the Hebrew state were things of the past; only Rome remained. But Rome at its best under Augustus was attempting to remain true to the old régime of a state religion. And Rome as a state was built on physical courage, subordination of the individual, intellectual aristocracy, and supremacy through war. Hence the new moral and religious ideals incarnated in Stoicism, neo-Platonism, Mithraism, and Christianity were compelled to grow as private religious sects independent of the Roman government. This means that deprived of political support these new ideals were forced to become mystical, individualistic. There were created newer institutions, religious sects, and monasteries, independent of, and antagonistic to, the normal social institutions such as the family and the state. In short, the "spiritual" world was separated from the social and political world and became a church. On the other hand, because this new non-political organization was made up of the very best, morally and religiously, the world of social institutions, the family, industry, the state, was deprived of that moral and spiritual interpretation it would otherwise have received. In this way, there arose as correlative to the "inner," "spiritual," mystical organization, the church, an "outer," secular, political organization, the state. Into the former went Greek philosophy, and the newer religions, with their new sense of the value of the individual; into the latter went the old social and institutional conscience-centering in the family, the community, industry, and the state-but secularized and therefore deprived of its old moral and religious significance.

Now we must regard this emphasis on the "inner,” individual phase of experience as indicative of a genuine moral and spiritual growth in the experience of the race. It means that the old racial level of "status," custom, tradition, has been outgrown, that the individual has become conscious of his own voluntary and rational life. Socrates and Euripides and Jeremiah and the Song of Solomon brought forth their discovery of the inner life of the individual in contradistinction to the group consciousness of Lycurgus and Moses. But these "inner" elements and processes of experience are not to be regarded as the ultimate achievement of religious truth; this development of the inner life is not to run riot in its own idealization and enjoyment, as happened in the mystery religions of Greece. Much of early Christianity took the same course. Religious experience exhausted itself in the achievement and enjoyment of ecstatic and mystical states of mind. Since this newer sense of self is but the coming to consciousness of the elements and processes of the reason and the will, functional psychology points to a larger interpretation of this "inner," individual experience brought to light by Greek philosophy and the newer mystery religions. It is not to spend itself in its own "internalization," to use Nietzsche's charming term, but to serve the purpose of giving a newer interpretation of the older social ideals. The older social ideals centering in the family, industry, education, government, are to be kept, but they must receive, if the mind of the race is to progress, an interpretation in terms of the will and reason, in other words in terms of the "inner" experience. To retreat from the world of social institutions, as a certain type of religious thinking has done, on the one hand, renders mystical and unbalanced and ineffective the religious and moral life, and, on the other hand, makes unspiritual, unethical, unidealistic the old world of social institutions which religion should interpret and spiritualize. Well may Farnell exclaim:1

The vitality of this religion of the family [and may we add of all social institutions ?], assailed as it was by the later ethics and philosophy of individualism, remained till the extinction of paganism; and its moral tradition survived that extinction both in the Greek and Roman world, and has become a heritage for modern civilization which will be maintained or discarded according to our destiny.

I The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion, pp. 57-58.

Nowhere is the inwardness of religion more apparent than in the teaching of Jesus. Instead of a body of laws against this and that form of wrongdoing, Jesus gives two attitudes as covering all special cases, love of God and love of our fellows as ourselves. The ceremonial, ritualistic type of purity incarnated in the Pharisees, Jesus severely condemns. Their ritual, priestly observances obscure the old prophetic elements of mercy and kindness and love. But this "inner" phase of religion in the teaching of Jesus is never opposed to an "outer" world; this emphasis on the individual is never a retreat from the social. The newer individual, internal point of view, which we historically associate particularly with the mystery religions and with later Greek philosophy, is clearly set forth on its moral and religious side in the teaching of Jesus. But Jesus does not emphasize reason as did Socrates, which tends toward exclusiveness and sectarianism. He emphasizes love, which is an emotion, and is social rather than individualistic in its tendency. Religion in the evolution of society must always in periods of race struggle emphasize the social or altruistic, and restrain the individual, instincts. Jesus was no purist, no separatist, no sectarian. His emphasis on the heart and will in no way separated him from the old Hebrew ideal of a righteous social kingdom as the greatest thing in the consciousness of his race.

The teaching of Jesus brought a new discovery of the individual. It brought a sword; it made a man the enemy of his own household. It made the hundredth individual who is needy more important than the ninety and nine. It brought a new spirit into the world absolutely in opposition to the social organization of the Roman Empire. This is true but it is a half-truth, and this half-truth has for many centuries done injury to the whole truth of the religion of the Nazarene. This other half of the truth is that this emphasis on the heart, on love, on the individual attitude, is the basis of a new type of society which Jesus called the kingdom of God. The love he preached is not a mystical emotion, not an exclusive attitude; it is essentially social, being nothing less than the attitude which one individual naturally assumes toward others who are brothers because children of one divine parent. Jesus, therefore, combines in his teaching the new religion which had been growing for cen

turies in the Greco-Roman world-the religion of the inner, individual life with the priceless ideal of the Old Testament prophets which interpreted religion in terms of social institutions. He gives a new philosophy of education in his declaration that the little child is the greatest of all in this new kingdom. He gives a moral basis of industry in his doctrine of wealth. And to government there comes a new meaning in his contrast between the Greco-Roman kingdoms built on aristocratic privilege and his own kingdom wherein the greatest is he who best serves. In this way the social institutions, for which the old Greek and Roman and Hebrew religions stood, are preserved; but they rest upon new foundations. They are interpreted in a new spirit, the spirit of Greek philosophy, the mystery religions, the reason, the heart, the will, the spirit of the Hebrew prophets. The new doctrine of the inner life and the older religion of social institutions are united in a more complete religious life. In biblical terms we may say that the Old Testament social consciousness gives way to the consciousness of the New Testament with its sense of inner individual experience. This, however, is but half the meaning of the New Testament. This inner experience is not the final religious goal of racial development; it gives a new spirit through which the old institutional, social religion of the Old Testament is to be reinterpreted. The old institutional religion is not to pass away but to be fulfilled in a new spirit—the spirit of love.

REVIEWS

Socialism from the Christian Standpoint. Ten conferences by FATHER BERNARD VAUGHAN, S. J. New York: Macmillan, 1912. Pp. 389.

Christianizing the Social Order. By WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH. New York: Macmillan, 1912. Pp. 493.1

To the severely objective sociologist there is little to choose between the futilities of socialism and the fatuities of anti-socialism. Neither is convincing. Father Vaughan's destructive argument is of the form: It is capable of proof that tide-mills could not be depended on to run the world's machinery, therefore there is nothing in oceanography; or, science has succeeded neither in creating life nor in abolishing death, therefore biology is an impostor. However valid the major premise in either case, it does not establish the conclusion. Father Vaughan has no trouble in assembling quantities of evidence that, among the doctrinaires and agitators of socialism, intellectual and moral perversities have been liberally represented. No more difficulty has he in specifying incredibilities in socialism itself, whatever the type. On the other hand, he says much well and truly, but more subtly and sophistically, about the resources of the Catholic church for healing all the real ills in human society. But after all he does not understand, or if he understands he artfully conceals, the gist of the whole matter. Whatever the merits or demerits of socialism, the fight which the Catholic church is making against it is merely the latest action in the immemorial struggle between dogma and life. The antithesis that began to appear between the popes and the reformers, that has become generalized now in the contradiction between authority and experience, between traditionalism and modernism, is merely manifesting itself with peculiar details in the present conflict between church and social discontent.

Father Vaughan's constructive argument is merely: the church knows it all; the church has the rights and wrongs of society all appraised and tabulated; the church has the only remedy for everything in society This review was written for the American Journal of Theology, and appeared in the issue of that journal for April, 1913.