Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/349

Rh us. Nor is its utility limited to the teacher. To touch on only one point, there is probably no other writing that contains within the same compass so much insight and practical wisdom on the question of morals in the public schools as will be found in the introduction by Mr. Gilman. It would be easy to select other sections for special attention, but when all is so good, such discrimination is invidious. The book excels alike by its intrinsic merits and by its adaptation to the end proposed.

J. G. S.

This book is composed of a number of short papers, most of which are theological in character, as indicated by the titles. The division of the book dealing with theism is, however, interesting from a philosophical standpoint, indicating as it does, the author's theory regarding the relation of God to nature and to man. He refuses to accept such a definition as that of Dean Mansel, which defines the Infinite as "containing within itself the sum not only of all actual, but of all possible, being." Such a view, he maintains, is pantheism, and this he wishes to avoid. The Infinite Being does not contain everything within itself, but is "so great that no addition can be made to its nature without destroying its self-consistency." We have, he argues, a perfectly trustworthy, though only partial, knowledge of the Infinite. We can perceive that an object is infinite, or why it must be so, though we cannot comprehend the object itself. The Infinite must, further, be an intelligent mind or spirit; for only such a Being can explain the material world, and the moral and religious nature of man.

When he comes to discuss the relation of God to the universe, he maintains the older view of a creation in time, and devotes the greater part of his second chapter to a criticism of theories which regard God as the ground of the world. The books which President Hovey criticises as representative of this latter view are Lotze's Microcosmus and Professor Schurman's Belief in God. The Welt-anschauung of both these thinkers is idealistic, and from President Hovey's arguments it seems evident that this is a position which he fails to understand. "The idealistic theory" he writes, "represents God as producing illusions in the mind of men. . . . The world which they are made by Him to see and feel is all in their mind's eye; it is a dream-world having no existence outside of their thought" (p. 34). It seems scarcely necessary to