of a growing equalization of general conditions, those differences which, as Dr. Tylor has well pointed out, will more and more assert themselves in the higher regions of thought and feeling, will lead to a steady advance in human capacity and character.
Anthropology, according to its able advocate and professor, possesses no little skill in dodging the most difficult questions. Having investigated penal laws until it finds their common origin in a desire for vengeance, and having analyzed religions until it discovers that they all spring from a dread of the unknown, it will not follow up either inquiry by attempting to ascertain why men dread the unknown or whether there is any more ultimate form or underlying explanation of the desire for vengeance. In the same way, while noting empirically what has made for the improvement of mankind, it will be careful about grappling with the question as to what "improvement" really means. Perhaps we should not complain of these discreetly imposed limitations, but it seems to us that, as regards the question of human improvement at least, anthropology, with its very wide outlook, ought, above all other sciences, to be in a position to give us its rationale.
We are glad to find Dr. Brinton, in the conclusion of his valuable address, declaring that "the teachings of anthropology, whether theoretical or practical, lead us back to the individual as the point of departure and also the goal. The state was made for him, not he for the state; any improvement in the group must start by the improvement of its individual members." We hold that this is the teaching of every true form of social science. The doctrine of individualism is not a doctrine of selfishness; it simply aims at arousing each individual to a sense of his own value as a social unit, and at making him feel that, if he wishes to live in an improved society, he should strive to improve himself and his own immediate environment. The intelligent study of sociology, we have no doubt, will work in this direction, inasmuch as it more and more tends to make all classifications and class distinctions appear unreal, and to bring the individual man into. prominence as the one subject and center of its labors. On this ground, if on no other, we would wish it every success; and as there are so many different fields that can be explored in its interest, we would counsel those who have no other scientific occupation to see if they can not bring some offering, however slight, to the great construction which we may hope the leaders of the science will one day give to the world.
RELIGION FOR THE AGE.
Canon Samuel A. Barnett, of England, is a man who has devoted much time and labour to the study of social problems in their widest aspect, and whose writings on such subjects are always marked by active human sympathy allied with strong common sense. We therefore turned at once with interest to his article in the September number of the Contemporary Review to see what he had to say on the subject of The Church's Opportunity, and were not at all surprised to find that he had some very pertinent things to say. In Canon Barnett's opinion "the Church" might, if it could only rise to the level of its duty and privilege, lend most useful assistance to the practical solution of our present-day social problems. How this might, in his opinion at least, be done he clearly indicates. The Church per-
