(1) One class are simply bent on seeking some novelty. They are well described by the _Egyptian Gazette_, of Alexandria, in speaking of the reception of Abdul Baha in London: "About the London meetings there was a certain air of gush and self-advertisement on the part of Baha's friends, which was quite patent to all who are familiar with that kind of religion which will listen to anything so long as it is unorthodox, new, and sensational."[1] (2) Another class are believers in the truth of all great religions, and, with a vague pantheistic notion, recognize all great men as God-inspired. They are willing to put Baha Ullah and Abdul Baha on the list of true religious leaders. Such is Rev. R.J. Campbell, who, in receiving Abdul Baha in London, spoke of the "diverse religious faiths that are all aspects of the one religion," and of the services as "a wonderful manifestation of the Spirit of God." He said to the congregation: "We as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is to us and always will be the Light of the World, give greeting to Abdul Baha." Mr. Campbell gives opportunity to the Bahai propaganda in the _Christian Commonwealth_, and has enlisted Abdul Baha as a contributor. (3) Another class look on Bahaism as an ethical system, and Baha and Abdul Baha as world teachers. Their relation to Christ has been only that of a disciple to a teacher of morals. They recognize in Baha a new schoolmaster. Being Bahais to them consists in admiration of certain principles on which Abdul Baha is in the habit of dilating. But these are not Bahaism any more than Romans xii.-xv. are Pauline Christianity. Paul's gospel is Romans i.-viii. In its moral precepts and social principles, Bahaism is a borrower from Christ's teaching, and sometimes from Mohammed. However, Bahaism is a religion, not a system of morals. (4) Some adherents regard Bahaism as Christianity continued or renewed by the Second Coming of Christ, whom they recognize in Abdul Baha. Most American Bahais are of this class, with faith in Baha Ullah as God the Father. How can I classify the late Prof. T. K. Cheyne of Oxford? This widely known critic in his last work (1914), "The Reconciliation of Races and Religions," bewilders me by his credulity. It is only charitable to excuse it as the product of his dotage. How otherwise could an Oxford scholar take pride in adopting the "new name" and titles given to him by Abdul Baha, sign his preface "Ruhani," Spiritual, and have pleasure in being called the "divine philosopher," "priest of the Prince of Peace (Baha)," and being compared to St. Paul as a herald of the Kingdom, and write himself a "member of the Bahai community." At the same time Doctor Cheyne wrote himself down as a "member of the Nava Vidhan, Lahore" (Brahma-Samaj).