out by “ H eredity ” and Environm ent, and Professor Clifford to invest the “ conscious, autom aton” Man with the power to control his own ideas !! Responsibility varies enormously, and is, perhaps, almost wanting in the savage (who, however, is in all cases the degraded relic o f primaeval civilisation). In all cases, the human E go must be held to be the evolver o f the group of tendencies which make up the personality of each re-birth. T h e sensualist is the victim o f a “ Frankenstein’s monster,” into which he has infused strength through many lives. W e really cannot follow Mr. Beatty when he w rites: “ Has man instincts, desires, and inclinations, or has he n o t? I f he has, why should he have them if he is not to follow them ” H e has them because they are the heritage handed down to him from past lives, and also because his Karm a as an individual is bound up with that o f the race to which he belongs. It rests with him as to how far he chooses to modify them “ for weal or woe,” for every moment the exhaustion o f past Karm a runs parallel with the creation o f new. It is certainly a strange doctrine here enunciated by Mr. Beatty, that the possession o f certain “ instincts, etc.,” justifies their gratification. Crime, debauchery and cruelty would be difficult to deal with on this hypothesis ! It is certainly true— to some extent— that “ we are good or bad by reason o f all the forces that act on or through us.” These latter are the stimuli to action ( subject to the control of the will) , but are in their turn the resultant o f previous Karma. Judging from the general tone o f h i s , criticism, it would appear that his first acquaintance with the esoteric philosophy does not date back to a very remote antiquity. A. K .
1
“ TH E
LATEST A T T A C K
ON
C H R I S T I A N I T Y .”
In the July number o f the Quarterly Review there is an article reviewing the recent book of J. C . Morrison upon “ T h e Service o f Man or the F u tu re Religion.” A n d although Mr. Morrison, in his book, writes to urge that the c h ie f and primary principle of religion is “ to promote the spirit o f self-sacrifice, and to direct men’s energies to the service o f their fellow creatures,” yet the Quarterly Review pours every kind o f insult and obloquy on Mr. Morrison. But herein is the gross contradiction, that the Quarterly Revieiv admits th at the primary principle o f Christianity has the very same objects in view, as M r. Morrison urges the future religion should have. A n d yet the Quarterly Review ridicules Mr. Morrison, and describes his book as an attack upon Christianity. Then, surely, when two persons thus fall out with one another, whilst b o th advocate the same lofty and noble principles, there must be some gross m is understanding between th e m ! T h e error thus which they both labour under, is one and the sa m e; for th e Quarterly Review errs, in assuming that the teaching or doctrine o f the C h u rch is indisputably, and infallibly, the teaching or doctrine o f C h rist A n d M r. Morrison errs in assuming that the teaching or doctrine o f Christ is the sam e as the doctrine o f the Church. So that if the teaching o f the Church is not the teaching o f Christ, then M r. Morrison in attacking the supposed Christianity o f the Church is not really