Reviews : Holmes, John H. The Revolutionary Function of the Modern Church. Pp. xi, 264. Price, $1.50. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912

• Author: Thomas D. Eliot
• DOI: 10.1177/000271621204300124
• Date: 01 September 1912
• Published date: 01 September 1912
• Subject Matter: Articles

340

distinction

seems

doubtful)

underlying

political

and

other

evolution,

and

leads

to

the

concept

of

democratic

empire.

&dquo;Citizenship&dquo;

and

&dquo;the

state&dquo;

are

used

only

for

the

third

phase.

Evolution

shows

net

progress,

but

no

assurance

for

the

future.

It

is

boldly

shown

that

progress

has

consisted

in

establishing

con-

ditions

of

self-direction,

within

limits

of

our

material

and

purposes;

and

hope

lies

in

ourselves.

&dquo;The

consciousness

of

unity

profoundly

affects

the

unity

itself.&dquo;

The

state

must

increase

liberty

by

adjusting

restraints:

laissez

faire

was

good

only

against

external

restraint.

Minorities

must

yield

only

where

uniformity

is

necessary.

The

rights

of

man

are

based

on

the

common

good.

Activity

which

depends

for

its

value

on

spontaneity

should

be

free;

but

expediency

is

the

final

test.

Such

is

the

argument

presented

by

Prof.

Hobhouse,

in

many

features

recall-

ing

Prof.

Ward’s

and

Prof.

Giddings’

theories.

It

is

odd

that

the

word

prog-

ress,

prominent

in

the

text,

does

not

appear

in

the

rather

vague

title.

University

of

Pennsylvania.

THOMAS

D.

ELIOT.

Holmes,

John

H.

The

Revolutionary

Function

of

the

Modern

Church.

Pp.

xi,

264.

Price,

$1.50.

New

York:

G.

P.

Putnam’s

Sons,

1912.

This

&dquo;firebrand

of

his

denomination&dquo;

shows

prophetic

zeal

for

social

justice,

but he

is

more

effective

in

speech

than

print.

His

exclamations,

repetitions,

and

platitudes

betoken

haste.

His

sudden

drops

from

impassioned

eloquence

to

the

level

of

the

sophomoric

outline

and

the

reference

library,

are

disconcertingly

like

a college debate.

Like

other

&dquo;high

churchmen,&dquo;

he

is

quite

willing

to

dogmatize

upon

the

authority

of

indiscriminate

quotations

from

his

own

demi-gods.

&dquo;The

inestimable

value

of

each

immortal

soul&dquo;

is

&dquo;the

one

great

principle

which

has

animated

the ...

Church

from

the

beginning&dquo;

(p.

15),

yet

&dquo;every

orthodox

scheme

of

salvation

has

been

founded&dquo;

upon

a

&dquo;low

and

repul-

sive

estimate

of

human

nature&dquo;

(p.

22).

He

claims

that

the

mediaeval

church

was

without

social

interests!

The

individual

minus

his

environment

&dquo;is

an

abstraction

not

known

to

experience&dquo;

(p.

40),

and

heredity

is

dismissed

&dquo;as

only

the ...

environment

passed

along&dquo;

(p.

225);

yet

&dquo;man

is

essentially

good,

not

bad&dquo;

(p.

141);

again,

&dquo;man

alone ...

can

change

the

world

to

suit

himself&dquo;

(p.

59),

of

course

the

supreme

individual

will

is

&dquo;never

wholly

eliminated&dquo;

(p.

255),

and

conditions,

due

to

human

greed,

are

blamed

upon

&dquo;the

men

who

are

the

creators

of

the

conditions.&dquo;

&dquo;

If

crime

be

socially

predeter-

mined,

this

shifty

logic

might

exonerate

employers;

or,

if

the

antidote

of

sin

is

income,

why

are

the

rich

the

worst

true

criminals?

He

praises

Jesus’

poverty

as

the

condition

of

his

success.

The

&dquo;inspirational&dquo;

theory

of

church

activity

he

thinks

&dquo;fatal

to

the

social

interpretation

of

religion&dquo;

(p.

239);

but

his

own

theory

of

&dquo;directing&dquo;

already

available

energies

is

hardly

distinct

from

it.

For

there

are

many

who

deny

total

depravity

and

&dquo;soul

rescue,&dquo;

who

stop

short

of

wanting

all

institutions

to

be

&dquo;all

things

to

all

men.&dquo;

&dquo;

He

thinks

&dquo;what

is

fitting

work

for

the

Christian

indi-

vidual

is

fitting

work

for

the

Christian

individuals

organized-which

means

the

church,&dquo;

a

dangerous

generalization.

The

last

four

chapters

are

excellent.

While

they

might

prejudice

a

careful