The Washington herald., 1906-12-09
-WOrdSyvorfh.

i5w serves as foundation ot the accepted doc1rns
q his Fepalsse personality adopted by the best
known French and English bi0gRpbgs-
In his Confessions" it viii be recalled
that Rousseau said not little about
the consDiracies against him by men Of
letters who. he thought. were jealous
Of him, but even if this fact IS proved 10
have been true, il is still a little difficult
70 see how it win throw any more gen
tie light on d personality which he him
self drew for the edificatiOn OF the world
and as sop 70 his inordinate vanity.
a volume Of the sort much needed in
this growing age Of unfaith-an age OF
fancied conflict between modern science
and ancient rellgion-ls Reason in Be
lief. by the Washington scholar, Frank
SewaIl. VI. A., D. b. The volume is an
examination into the rational and phiIo-
sOphical content OF The Christian faith.
Starting with kants generally accepted
doctrine OF the unity or apperceptiou in
the SOUL as the basis Of all relation and
all knowing. Dr. SewaH has carried the
principle 70 its results not only as touch
ing the existence and personality oF God.
bat as relating 10 the other great funda-
mentals of the Christian reIigion-revc-
Iation incarnation. immortality. saliva
ton. The whole treatise is predicated
on the need for an age like the pres
ent. of an approach 10 the sanctuary OF
revealed supernatural truth through the
door Of human reason and intellect. L
is not, in any sense. an attempt 10 square
the supernatural truths which are the
basis of Christian faith with the teach
ings of modern science; not another the
ory OF a cosmicaI hypothesis. it is es-
senually q faith for this scientific age.
Perhaps no difficulty in the way Of
complete faith in the Scriptures assaHs
the pseudO-scientihc dOubter so strongly
as the divine incarnation. and The mas
terly argument put forward By Dr. sew
ali on this subject is a prime test Of the
value Of his work. Dr- SewaIIs work =
directly antagOnistic 10 the principle Of
"credO quia non iutelligo' II believe be-
cause I 10 not understand; he would
have all believe because they understand
thoroughly. To Kants "Critique Of Pure
Reason the author gives great credit
and shows that here, for the first time,
philosophy coufcsses its inability 10 at
tain knowledge Of the absolute reality,
while admitting the entirely rational
character Of belief in such a reality Il
follows. therefore. according 10 Dr. sew
all, that IN examining the Fundamental
veritieS OF the Christian faith We are not
compelled TO do this in a negative or
agnostic spirit. but rather with a reason
able hope that we shall find in these veri-
ties the highest exhibition and embodi-
ment Of reason itself. This is q scholar
ly, well-writren. and inspiring treatise
thoughtful, inspiring. It strikes much
needed note in this age Of little faith.
and has a message alike for the theolo-
gian and the layman. The book is pub
liShed by Elliot Stock London
Another writer who expresses dissatis-
faction with the present form Of mar
riage, but who does not follow Mrs. Par
sons and her theories Up TO the point of
advocating short-term marriages. is
Philip Rappapcrt, well-known writer
on sociological and socialistic topics. His
book is called Looking Forward" and il
was written some time before Mrs Par
sons book was published. The volume
is a treatise on the Status Of Women
and the Origin and Growth Of the Fam
lily and the State" and the author states
that it is written from the standpoint OF
historic materialsm." His whole ar
gument is based on the theory that the
economic structure Of society is the
foundation upon which all human insti-
tu,ions, physical or moral. are built.
He describes the beginnings Of social
organization through the Greek and Ro-
man gentes and tribes UP 10 the modern
state. He also follows the development
OF the family from the earliest periods
of mankind to our own time, and he
comes to the conclusion that the monoga-
nous family was the result OF private
property in land. which before that vas
the common property Of the tribes.
The mOnogamian family is. according
TO the author, the fifth in a succession Of
forms. It arose. he declares, from a de-
sire TO produce only small families on
account Of the precariousness Of eco
nonic existence after trial relations had
ceased. He says. There is no reason
10 believe that at some future time it
will not give way to another and higher
form" He thinks a change from the
present system OF marriage IS inevitable.
He says:
The present form Of the family sp-anE into exist
ence and became gradually the prevailing form az
a time when property began its career Of mastershu
over man Its transformation wiil take place at some
future time. which VII mark the beginning Of the
mastership Of man over property. This change Of
mastership VIII produce Bew moral conceptions a
new code Of ethics Just the present form II
family corresponds % the moral conscience oF oar
times. 50 wiz the future family correspond to the
moral conscience OF future period. What that
form VIII be it Is impossible TO foresee.
Mr. Rappaports attitude is that the
family is a social institution first and
a moral institution afterward: that its
form never has been and never viii be
permanent.
On the subject of divorce the author
promulgates the apparently paradoxicaI
theory that the way to prevent numerous
divorces is to provide the utmost facility
for obtaining divorce. He writes:
What moral right has society to intrads as 51dEs
between husband and wife. when they need
hitsrls Why ssculd society. in the form Of law and
justice, meddle with the private affairs Of parties
who do not seek arbiter between themi
unable to see what society profits or what public
morals gain by not permitting parties who are IN
happily married and wish dissolve their union 10
do IT quietly and decently 10y a method as simple
as that Of marriage instead Of compelling them 20
Yentlate their troubles before the eyes Of the pubo
and make their marital relations and domestic az
fairs subject Of common gossip. TO the disgust OF
every decent person and TO the pleasure only OF the
scandalmOnger.
The Writer blames our present economic
and industrial conditions for the deteri-
Grafton of the family and the decrease in
the number of marriages which has re-
suited in physical and moral injuries. Hs
suggests that the best remedy for social
ills is freedom, and he makes the So
cialistic claim that no man Is free who
depends for his living upon another. He
thinks that the present form of family
life is bound 10 change. and he draws a
picture Of the future which IS rather
utopian
The time viii surely come when husband and VIE
viii be desirous of pleasing and appearing heaut-
ful to each other, as if They were stil trying to
win each other: when the wife win dress well even
for her husband alone, and when no husband viii
return from his work 20 his home begrimed with