strength be a result of those forces of our modern civilization which tend more and more to the bringing together of great masses of our population within small areas? Moreover, it is undeniable that the more our sympathetic impulses lead us to assist the unfortunate in place of leaving them to their fate, the more do we assist the survival of the unfit. And it is at least conceivable that this process might continue to such an extent as to result in the gradual deterioration of the race. It must not be forgotten that evolution is by no means "careful of the type."
The criticism of Theological ethics might well have been omitted. The immoral side of the Old Testament teachings has been so often pointed out that it is hardly necessary once more to slay the slain. After all, it is not so remarkable that certain ancient Hebrew writers should have advocated actions and praised feelings that we now condemn, as that so many of their moral judgments should be such as still commend themselves to the most rigidly scientific moralists of our own day. So with Christian ethics; if the doctrine of the atonement has an immoral side, it has a moral side as well; and it is not improbable that it has as often led to a recognition of the "exceeding sinfulness of sin" as to the taking away of the sense of moral responsibility. In any case, the discussion of such questions must be undertaken in a perfectly dispassionate and unbiassed spirit, if we are to get from it a right estimate of the ethical significance of Theology in general or of Christianity in particular. For such a purpose, perhaps, the times are not yet ripe.
E. Ritchie.
