tionary interest in the future has been quite wholly concerned with "progress." And because of the traditional interest in the individual, progress has been conceived in terms of individual efficiency, and its culmination in a race of imaginary supermen, "a coherent universe -process of interacting spirits advancing to ever higher attainFurthermore, because that evolutionary progress has been chiefly expressed in terms of the physical, in terms of man's increasing control over his physical environment, his rational capacity being still regarded by the great majority as supernatural, the scientific and philosophic interest in evolution is even to-day confined to the almost wholly academic problem of the acquisition and transmission of acquired characteristics. Men fail to discern that human selfcontrol has been a necessary prerequisite to control of nature, and that every new control of nature must also be a matter of selfcontrol, both in the interest of its acquisition and in that of its right use. There has seldom been a more conspicuous case of gaping for a camel and swallowing a gnat than is exemplified in the total results of the study of heredity as applied to man; and seldom a more conspicuous case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel than the biologist's acceptance of the mythological doctrine of souls. The extenuating explanation of his plight is the fact that ecclesiasticism had already got him thoroughly indoctrinated with this belief before he had yet dreamed of becoming a scientist. It is hard indeed to slough off deeply ingrained folkways of acting and thinking.

As

But the most significant thing in the past history of man, as of other species, is not the fact of progress, however marvelous all this may appear. Progress is secondary and incidental to that most significant thing, which is the fact that the phyla that have become man and all the humbler species have actually achieved continuity of life through perhaps a hundred million years. the really significant thing to discern in the evolutionary past is perpetuity of life through many millions of years, chiefly through responsiveness to sensory stimuli and to blind, organic impulse, so should our interest in the present and future of humanity be an interest in the perpetuity of the species itself. If the human phylum was so long successful without intelligence, and if since the development of intelligence and reason it has been so successful in spite of ignorance and selfishness, who is to say that with its dawning world-wide social intelligence it may not achieve as long a span of life in the future as it already has in the past?

Here, then, we discern what must be the concern and spirit of

that better civilization which is certainly destined to supplant ours of to-day. Its standard of evaluations will not be traditional ideas or beliefs, or compliance with social or institutional forms, but an ideal of perpetuity for the human race. This will be our new humanism. It will discern that man does not live to progress, but progresses as the basic condition of a continued species life; and its concern for this fundamental evolutionary ideal will direct it in its decisions regarding the nature of progress, of good and evil, of social organization and activities. Here will be found a new and really scientific basis for practical ethics. Moreover, here will be allowed the greatest possible freedom for the individual, who will readily admit that he has no right or privilege to violate the demands. of the species life, save as he sublimates one impulsion in terms of a higher, more helpful one for the species, and who will always have before him as a free field of liberty a choice of all the modes of service to the race that his capacity permits. How much greater freedom can one demand for himself? Where shall he find a greater stimulus to healthful living? Where shall he find more abundant happiness, the reward of well-living? Who will grieve to see the old order give place to the new?

V.

And, finally, what shall be the place of the Church in that new order? At first thought most persons will perhaps discern no place for it at all; it is so common an error to suppose that an institution depends for its continuity upon a maintenance of the forms, practices, and "principles" with which its founders and developers envisaged its meaning. The erroneous assumption has perhaps never been more succinctly stated than in Thomas Davidson's Aristotle : "An institution perishes when it abandons the principles on which it was founded and built up." And yet even here is left open a way for the Church to save its face and live. If it insists that its tenets regarding soul, forgiveness of sin, heaven, and all the rest of its individualistic and mythological philosophy are the grounds of its existence and therefore must be retained, its days are all but numbered. But if it insists that the basic principle of its founding, as of its historical continuity, was service to man, and that with the advance of knowledge a new conception and a reinterpretation of what constitutes real service has become necessary; if it will discard its old "revelations" as inadequate and will proceed to adapt itself to the new revelation extracted from the scientific examination of

man's history and nature, in that case it opens before itself a vista of service as broad as the surface of the earth and as long as the possible future of the race itself. Furthermore, in so doing it will be able to throw off the enormous incubus of myth and casuistry with which ecclesiasticism loaded it in its effort to save the shadow without admitting the substance of truth.

What adjustment, then, must the Church make in. order to become true to the spirit of evolution, and what is to be the service that it must render in its regenerated existence? The new thing to which it must adjust itself is the idea of, and the demand for, a practical earthly immortality of the human race. Out of this adjustment will arise as many problems as it ever attempted to solve, problems of which there will be no end for number, problems whose solution will be continuous with the life of the race, because each new generation must be oriented and prepared for its life work, and each generation of the elders must ever and anon have its knowledge extended and refreshed and its faith renewed. Such an adjustment will result in a practical, working identification of religion with life, a relationship which the Church has always asserted, but never convincingly, because it really knew neither term of the equation. Such an adjustment will put the Church in the way of rendering a positive, dynamic, intelligible service in the life of the race. instead of the incidental and ineffectual service that it has indirectly rendered, because it put a mythical interpretation upon it, in the past. It will array the Church positively upon the side of life and common humanity, as against privilege and the oppressors of the weak. Better, by revealing to all men their really innate humanity, it will remove the temptation to profiteering and oppression. It will make the Church the fighting champion of science and of every new application of knowledge that will redound to the betterment, and therefore happiness, of the human race. It will restore to humanity the office of prophet, which it all but lost when institutionalism gained the ascendancy in the life of the Hebrew race. It will change the current conception of life from that of a "struggle for existence" to one of a "cooperation for living," a continuously cooperative living of the life of the whole human race, to the end. that it may never die.

The Church has not been mistaken in claiming for itself preeminence among human institutions, but only in its misinterpretation of man's need of it, and of the kind of preeminent function that it was called upon to perform. The error was wholly natural in the days of man's ignorance, but to-day man calls upon it to repent

of its old error and to set forth upon the right path. As it was man's institution in the beginning, so is it to-day, in spite of the ecclesiasticism that has always held it as preeminently a stronghold for propaganda recommending an existenceless world; and he will either mold it to his needs, now better discerned, or will supplant it with a better. It rests with the Church to decide which he shall do.

ROMAN TOLERANCE TOWARD THE GREEK

LANGUAGE.

BY A. KAMPMEIER.

IN empires consisting of different nationalities, the language question always has played a great part. The ruling people generally considers its own language as far superior to that of the other nationalities and very often is intolerant toward other languages, even if these languages are not those of savages, not yet fixed in literature, but are languages which have been fixed in literature. long ago connected with a high civilization. Probably very few ruling peoples have not shown intolerance in this respect.

In this connection it is interesting to consider the attitude of ancient Rome toward the languages of the peoples becoming subject to them, especially toward the Greek language, the most widely used in the Roman Empire besides the Latin. It is that of the greatest tolerance.

In order that philologists and historians may not say, that I am carrying owls to Athens, i. e., that this is long ago known, I must give a reason for my writing this. I have found out that this is really not so generally known as we think it is. Why this defective historical information, I do not know. In these latter years of national hostility also other things have rushed into print which show a lack of historical information. A few years ago the president of a noted. American scientific association published an article. in a well-known American scientific journal, to show that the Germans in fact had done very little in scientific research and discovery. etc. Among other things he said that the Germans cannot show up in physical and astronomical science such men as Galilei, Newton and Kepler. In a private note I called his attention to the fact that Kepler was a German. He admitted his mistake with the excuse that he intended to say in that sentence "Prussians" instead of