Revolution was but part of the great evolution of modern democracy".

Mr. White then draws a line "between development by natural growth and development by catastrophe". He prefers the former. As an example of the two kinds of development Mr. White cites first the American Revolution. "Evolution by right reason", as urged by Burke and Pitt, failed, and "the revolutionary method prevailed". "Every thinking man will now at least suspect that the evolutionary process the peaceful development of constitutional liberty in the colonies their gradual assumption of state and national dignity, would have saved great suffering to mankind and probably in the long run would have produced a stronger republic and a sounder democracy".

He then cites the French Revolution. Turgot "strove to develope free institutions by a natural process". But "the forces which made for progress by catastrophe and revolution" were too strong. "Could the nation have gone on in the path of peaceful evolution marked out by him (Turgot), it is, humanly speaking, certain that constitutional liberty would have been reached within a few years, and substantial republicanism not long after. What weary years would have been avoided:-the despotism of the guillotine, of the mob, of the recruiting officer;-twenty years of ferocious war, millions of violent deaths,-billions of treasure thrown into gulfs of hate and greed"!

The third example is the American Civil War, a form of revolution. The pacificator was Henry Clay. "He proposed to extinguish slavery gradually, naturally, by a national sacrifice not at all severe in fact, by a steady evolution of freedom out of servitude." But his plan failed. "Revolutionists on both sides opposed it". The result we all know: slavery was indeed abolished, but instead of being abolished by a peaceful process, involving an outlay of twenty-five millions of dollars, it was abolished by the most fearful of modern wars, at a cost, when all loss is reckoned, of ten thousand millions of dollars, and of nearly, if not quite, a million of lives".

How much more striking the revolution against the Czarist rule which was instigated in Russia as a blow at Teutonic power on the Eastern front. If men can yet think calmly, the intrigues of this revolution, as of the war, will yet be seen as an undesirable process of development, though thought to be a military necessity.

Only by a spirit of moderation on both sides of a controversy can revolution, war and bloodshed be avoided. The extreme attitude in the reactionary, that is, the radical spirit where least expected the stubborn, unyielding disposition-is as bad as the radical spirit among those who are classed as liberals. When men are hot in debate or are threatened by foes, all thought of catastrophe and human suffering is cast to the winds, and revolution, like a declaration of war, is voted right, sane, necessary. He who says "Nay" is called a coward and a traitor.

At the present time those who oppose revolution and would restrain every revolutionist are of two classes. The one class, a small minority, consists of those opposed to war, commonly called "conscientious objectors". The other class consists of those who favored the Great War, under orders of the Government, men who stifled conscience and shouted, "My country, right or wrong". Thus pacifists and reactionaries find themselves in the same company in checking the spread of revolution. It is only surprising that the strongest antagonists of revolution, these conscientious objectors, are classed along with revolutionists by these other antagonists of revolution, the late advocates of the Great War.

Another strange circumstance is that so many of those who in all the nations are turning towards revolution as the goal of human happiness had at heart but little sympathy with the fighting of either side in the World's great struggle for political mastery and military triumph. That is, the opponent of war under all circumstances now aligns himself with the advocate of revolution and the protagonists of violence. Many are the lovers of peace who defend "direct action"..

In a word it is almost as hard to think straight about revolution as about war. The moral principle, the rule of conscience, the dictum of simple right, fails to exercise its authority.

Really the most logical and most consistent are those who look with disfavor both on war and revolution. How comes it, then, that these men and women are decried as fanatics and fools? Is it some strange eccentricity of the human mind that always arises when the mind is inflamed?

Generally the question of revolution is viewed from another standpoint than that of ethics or religion. Even in the realm of religion, the judgment passed is that of one's own conscience or religious theories and dogmas.

Several years ago the writer made a special study of the Sacred Books of all the Great Religions on this one topic of revolution; he went back to the teachers of the Founders of the Great Faiths. Here were men of deep spiritual insight, "wise men of the East"; what did they think of revolution? In the main they discouraged, but never stimulated, revolution. As with war, so with revolution, it may come only as a last resort. Some were opposed to all war as to every bloody revolution. These men may well be our guides today. The spiritual element should dominate all.

I

INTELLECT, RELIGION AND THE UNIVERSE.

BY H. R. VANDERBYLL.

[Concluded.]

HAVE suggested that man's universe became larger as his intellect developed. But his inability to explain its construction and its natural phenomena caused him to imagine that existence of one or more deities who were responsible for what happened in his universal home. Considered from a standpoint of absolute truth, ancient conceptions can have but little value. It should be remembered, however, that the first step towards solving the mystery of the universe is to become aware of the fact that a universe exists. Quite a few among us, today, are not aware of that fact.

It is something to the credit of the Babylonians that they were capable of seeing stars when they looked at them. Had they possessed our modern intelligence, their star-religion would, of course, not have been. As matters stood, however, they crowded the deep of the world with their imaginary deities, who were, supposedly, the rulers of their destinies. Remarkable it is to note, in connection with this Babylonian star-worship, that many modern people do not travel far behind the ancients on the road leading towards understanding when they superstitiously embrace the pseudoscience of astrology.

The extraordinary universe that the Babylonians possessed interests us especially because they were instrumental in enlarging the limited world of which the Hebrew originally was aware. Certain passages, occasionally entire chapters, of the Old Testament point to the fact, that the Hebrew was acquainted with, and borrowed from, Babylonian mythology. These borrowed conceptions were gradually modified by him to harmonize more or less with his own religion.

The result is that we meet with two different conceptions of

Jahveh in the Old Testament. The one pictures the original, narrowly conceived deity, who reflects the mental and the moral qualities of the semi-savage. The other suggests a more or less universal deity who rules over a considerable part of the universe. One is rather baffled at first when finding these two conceptions side by side in the pages of the Bible.

Thus, in Genesis, we come across some fourteen verses devoted to the subject of the creation of the universe. They are garbed in a style that verily fits the subject of narration. And the universe of which the Hebrew is conscious includes "the face of the deep" and the "firmament of the heaven" with its greater and its lesser light. While the ushering in of Jahveh, however, fills us with expectation, we meet with disappointment, in the chapters that follow. From the universal Jahveh whose spirit moves upon the face of the waters, we descend to the Jahveh who dwells in trees and rocks and wells, to the Jahveh who repents his savage cruelty in the episode of the flood, to the tribal deity who reflects an intense degree of self-centeredness on the part of his worshiper.

The two conceptions of Jahveh hint at two different stages of intellectual development. The larger universe is new to the Hebrew but, in time, becomes his permanent home. In time, the universal Jahveh absorbs the tribal deity. There are, however, numberless stepping-stones that lead from the narrow to the larger conception. Many a superstition, many a barbaric rite, survive long after the old deity has been supplanted by the new.

We can not expect the larger universe which the Hebrew gradually beheld to be scientifically sound. Phenomena and facts concerning the universe when first observed by man, are never interpreted correctly. Their swaddling clothes are myth and childlike imagination. It is foolish, therefore, to inject scientific truth into the Biblical story of creation. Its unscientific nature is apparent to every unbiased reader. Is it necessary to point out that the Hebrew was unaware of the fact that the sun is the source of light? But why hold it against him that he created light and darkness first, and the sun and the moon afterwards? Why not realize that he was a pioneer in the infinite field of thought, and that he explained as well as he could? Is there anything discouraging, or sad, or immoral about that? There is not. But there is something discourging about the fact that the ancient notion of divine revelation should still obstruct the path of intellectual progress.