Church and scholastic philosophy, but face to face, receiving their answer at first hand. They found nature speaking a language that they could understand. In this new revelation, therefore, which has ushered in the modern scientific era of the world, the tradition of the Fathers, this veil of separation, has been done away. Man stands with uncovered face in the sacred Presence.

But Science, too, was to bring not first peace, but a sword. Aside from minor events, three momentous and decisive conflicts are on record. First, in astronomy, tradition held that the earth occupied a fixed position in the center of the universe, with the luminaries, hung in the firmament, all revolving around it. This had not been proven to be soindeed its proof had encountered unyielding obstacles, but it appeared to be the teaching of Scripture, confirmed by long belief. As the special object of creation and plan of redemption, man could, in fact, scarcely think otherwise than that the earth, as his abode, should occupy a central place, the focus of Divine thought and care. When, therefore, the Polish priest, Copernicus, with some hesitation and delay, put forth his book in 1543, on the movement of the heavenly bodies, in which he maintained that the sun was the center, and the earth one of the planets only, the very foundations of religion seemed to be imperiled. It was clearly contrary to Scripture, and on the word of Scripture was staked the veracity of the Almighty. Protestantism fought for the faith as delivered to the fathers as stubbornly as did the Catholic Church. "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth," thundered Luther. "Our eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours," said Melanchthon, appealing to commonsense. Calvin clinched his argument by appeal to the 93d Psalm: "The world also is established, that it cannot be moved." It was probably fortunate for Copernicus that he was already on his

death-bed when his book came from the press at Nuremberg.

All protestation proved of but little avail, however. Galileo's glass added proof to the statements of Copernicus. Kepler demonstrated the exact course of the planets, and discovered the law of their periodicity. Newton supplied the final demonstration in that masterful generalization which we know as the law of gravitation. All the phenomena within the range of the solar system, including comets, which had been regarded as portents of evil, and eclipses, regarded as a sign of the grief of nature, all had been brought, at length, under the sway of law. Astronomy became not merely a demonstrated science, but a predictive science: so far had the heavens been cleared of caprice and of the unknown. Yet the foundations of God stood secure.

After discovering the position of the earth in its relation to the sun and planets, the next inquiry turned to the problem presented by the earth itself, in the contour of continents, mountains and streams, cliffs and chasms, rock stratifications, with their embedded forms of animal life. Fossils were generally explained as remains of animals drowned in the Noachian deluge, and distributed by the flood over the earth. Deep canyons, huge fissures, broken strata of rock, these were attributed to some unknown, sudden mighty cataclysm. From a religious standpoint, the entire rough, seamed face of the earth, with its numerous signs of violence, was ascribed as in

some sense

the consequence of sin. "There were no earthquakes before Adam's fall," John Wesley declared.

But events had been gathering for a change. In 1830 Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology appeared. This opened a new epoch, and was the beginning of the science of modern geology. Conservative in its statement, specific in its recital of observed facts, logical in its inferences, the book showed how the present appearance of the earth's sur

face was due to the operation, during long ages, of the same natural forces that are at work to-day.

Tradition rebelled against this assumption of a process of creation, for Scripture stated that God created the world "in the beginning," everything at once. Furthermore, Lyell asserted that these forces must have operated through long ages, many times longer than the chronology of the Bible makes room for. Investigations in other fields were bringing corroborative evidence. Archeology discovered in caves and in layers of rock rude human implements, side by side with skeletons of animals long extinct, indicating the existence of man in a previous geological age. Excavations on the banks of the Nile revealed that here was the seat of a civilization, with cities of hewn stone, already centuries before Abraham. While ethnology, from etchings of human features found on temple ruins and exhumed tablets, and from a study of other evidence, pointed out that before the dawn of history the differentiation of the races must have taken place, and the various distinctive racial traits have become fixed, essentially as they are to-day. And from this point backwards it must have been ages to the beginning the creation.

In vain did tradition appeal to the six days in Genesis. Proofs supporting the new view became cumulative. And as the learning of the race had, in a previous century. been compelled to enlarge the boundaries of space, so now it was compelled to stake farther back the bounds of time.

The spirit of scientific inquiry, flushed as with new wine, now turned to a study of living organisms. If the Bible stated that God made them all, sea animals, land animals, and lastly man, science was bold enough to inquire, How? It looked for some rational process that would lend itself to scientific statement. The general similarity of plan of the various species, in the homology of parts and functions, had long impressed men.

It

suggested a relationship, back somewhere. There must be a general law or principle-a sort of skeleton-keywhich would open the way into the formal secrets of the diverse species as they exist to-day. After not a few suggestions, supported by more or less evidence, of a theory of development or evolution, it remained for Charles Darwin to effect a demonstration of the theory, in his book, The Origin of Species, which appeared in 1859. The principle or law which he found to account for the variations in type, he called the law of natural selection. His conclusions, supported by an array of proofs, appeared incontestible. Thus was brought on the third decisive contest between science and tradition. God appeared to have been bowed out of the universe. Science seemed to have dispensed with His services in the work of creation, and with no Adam, no sin and no fall, the whole scheme of redemption seemed to be ruled out. No wonder men declared that with Darwinism Christianity would stand or fall. Yet it pleased God that both should stand.

To one more field has the spirit of scientific inquiry turned, against opposition. The Bible, many times invoked in defense of error, was now to be itself interpreted and tested. Possibly men had been as false in their interpretation here as were the Schoolmen earlier, when they discoursed upon the phenomena of earth and sky. The traditional interpretation of the Scriptures encountered, indeed, no fewer obstacles than did earnest observers of nature, earlier, when they tried to reconcile what they saw with current and accepted views. The first requisite to an understanding of the Bible was to get a right view-point, and a right way of approach. How certain words found their way into the leaves of the Bible, and what they mean, is no more directly revealed to man than is the meaning of the fossils and foot-prints found between layers of rock-the pages of geological history.

And tradition in the one instance is about as likely to be reliable as it is or was-in the other. The inquiry must be first-hand, and the deductions carefully drawn from observed and verifiable facts.

First, certain hints gave a clue which placed the authorship of the Pentateuch at a period much later than the events it narrates. Statements like these were noticed: "The Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen., 12: 6); "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses" (Deut., 34: 10); "These are the kings that reigned over Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (Gen., 36: 31). This seemed clearly to point to a writer who lived at a time when Israel had had a line of both prophets and kings. Again Moses does not speak in the first person, as if he were himself the writer, but is spoken of in the third person; and Deuteronomy speaks of his death and burial. Furthermore, among the historical sources made use of by the writer was the "Book of the Wars of Jehovah" (Num., 21: 14); yet these tales of battle must themselves have been written after Moses' time, for they celebrate the events in which Moses was himself the chief actor. The authority of Moses could therefore no longer be invoked for the veracity of the Creation story, and the supposedly revealed history of all beginnings.

Further study of the text, free from the veil of tradition, revealed certain repetitions and discrepancies and diversities of style, within the Pentateuch itself, which led to the discovery of the composite character of those books, no fewer than two separate traditions being discernible in the narrative of the Creation, the Flood, and succeeding events. Again, with reference to the ceremonial law, assigned to Moses, it was noted that all Israel was in ignorance of the existence of such a law during all the centuries after Moses, up to the exile. The inference of a post-exilic

origin for this body of law-the Priest code-became inevitable. Deuteronomy, also assigned to Moses, was upon the same considerations moved forward to the time of Josiah (2 Kings, 22), the appearance of this book leading to the reforms and to the centralizing of worship, as recorded for the first time in the history of this king. The book of Chronicles was seen to be a late recast, in theological mold, of the history of Israel, traced to the beginning of the world. Of these documents it may be said, generally, that they are more faithful as reflecting the spirit of the time in which they were written, than they are an accurate history of past events.

But we are not so much concerned with particulars here, as with general principles, the getting of a correct view-point, the fixing of Biblical bearings. This study as a correct method of approach to Biblical literature has been vindicated. That the Bible stands out as the Great Exception, and as therefore not amenable to universal methods of historical inquiry, this assumption has been, among leaders of thought, ruled out for all time. That contest-the really crucial contest, has been decided. Legend and history, parable and allegory, poetry,-all these are recognized as constituting the materials and forms of the literary workmanship of the Bible. Christianity as an historical religion must submit itself to accepted canons of historical interpretation. Its cosmologies, its miracles and wonderstories, are to be approached as similar narratives in other religions, and in the history of other peoples. These do not make a religion a "supernatural” religion: they are themselves to be accounted for. There is some great principle, or subsoil, out of which these all spring, whether in or outside the Bible. The law of universality is inexorable here. The wise Christian apologist will rest the uniqueness and superiority of his faith less on any uniqueness

are

of its historical forms, but more on the excellence of its historical content.

66

All this has given us our standpoint, and from here has shown us our way of approach. While scholars are, naturally enough, not at all points in agreement, this difference is expressed to-day in the terms, "This one does not go so far," or That one goes farther"; but all proceed by the same way. Having received our directions, therefore, every one may become his own investigator, make his own observations, draw deductions from what his own eyes can see. The position of the Roman Catholic Church, recently re-affirmed, in planting itself anew squarely across the path of free inquiry, is an anachronism, to say the least. It is the mummied face of Medievalism projecting itself into a new age, in which the story of its unholy deeds done in the days of the flesh has already passed into a tradition.

Here we must stop. With somewhat swift strides we have now traversed many fields. But we wanted to look at the modern scientific method in its historical development, and in its main achievements. Furthermore, we have been in quest of the supernatural. Tradition had said, Lo here! Lo there! and eagerly, yet somewhat on our guard, we have looked. The sun, moon and stars said: "It is not in us-all is order here." The frowning cliffs, the yawning chasms, the embedded, fissured rocks, each spoke back: "It is not in me." Then we looked upon the human form, walking erect among the creeping and four-footed beasts of the earth, and here we confidently expected to find the clear marks of Divine workmanship. Man, looking upon his nearest of kin, and at his own hands and feet, replied: "It is not in my flesh." Then we found our refuge in the Scriptures. 'Surely," we said, "here the Lord has manifested himself, here we shall find the signs of the supernatural." But not immediately. The Garden of Eden said, No: other nations have their

66

own story of a sinless age, and of a beginning of evil. It was not in the flood, by the same token; nor in Elijah's chariot, nor in the fiery furnace, nor in the whale. These and similar stories are the common property of antiquity.

But by such blundering we have learned much. We always learn thus. Like a child race, we have looked for the supernatural in signs, in earthquakes, in eclipses, in the smiting by death or raising to life, in passings through the air, in mighty wonders. And having refused to be comforted, the jealous prophet of Jehovah sat down and cried: "It is enough: let me die." Then in the calm that followed it came to man that not in the extraordinary, but in the ordinary events of nature, here is God manifested. Not that the sun should stand still, but that it should move or the earth-and in its resistless sweep never vary by the shadow of a turning, these are the ways of the Almighty. ways of the Almighty. In the regular habits of nature, as in man, rather than in her caprices, here is the evidence of the Divine. God had set his signs in the very places where we looked, but we did not recognize them. Science has established to the glory of God that his ways are orderly; that nature is trustworthy and her answers consistent. the other hand, God has honored man in that he has admitted us into his confidence, enabling us to think his thoughts after him.

On

The spirit of science, then, means a new approach to knowledge. It means a new criterion of truth. Instead of the canon of tradition, "What has always, everywhere, and by all been believed," it says, "What may always, everywhere, and by all be verified"; for the laws of nature, like God, whose they are, are the same yesterday, to-day, and unto the ages. Yes, even in the epic of redemption, the Divine Spirit, coming into human life, takes the form of a "Servant," becoming obedient unto law-the law of universal necessity,

which makes this universe a place of order, and gives to the work of creation the impress of one Mind.

While science, therefore, may claim its rightful domain, it must at the same time acknowledge its limitations. From the notions of star dust to the growth of the embryo cell, from the processes of the brain to the habits of bacterial life, from world-making to myth-making,— these belong to science. Science studies forms and traces processes: essences and the life principle it does not know. It explores paths, but does not speak of the Personality that walks there. Ultimate plans and great over-ruling

purposes are not within its ken. In a limited sense only is science knowledge. In a larger sense it merely furnishes the correct materials for knowledge. It narrates; it does not explain, ultimately. The processes belong to science; the meanings to philosophy; the realization-moral meanings made flesh-to religion.

The supernatural, then? Yea, Lord, nearer than hands and feet. It is in the beating of the heart. It is the stuff of the soul.

AUGUST F. FEHLANDT.

West Salem, Wis.

HE GROWING unpopularity of President Roosevelt would have been impossible if he had carried out the reforms which he has put only in his speeches. These reforms are so just, practicable and imperative that the greatest success and personal glory would have followed their enactment. The Two-cent-fare laws in the several states have on trials proved their great practicality;* the Public-Service Commission of New York has been such a boon to the people that the sneer against "visionary reform" is heard no more. France was thankful that she accepted the reforms of the "visionary" Turgot. The period of great prosperity in every nation has been the period when radical reform was given a fair trial.

But Mr. Roosevelt chose to undo with his left hand what he proclaimed with

*Nebraska, heavy gain; Union Pacific, heavy gains; Burlington crowded in the aisles; Northwestern, heavy additions; Pennsylvania, gain of $152,465; Reading, gain of $1,529,660 in four months; Minnesota, great gains, heavier than ever before. Press dispatches, August 24, 1907.

his right. In the midst of the growing deprecation he has not a solitary reform measure that goes straight to the life of the people to hold a brief for him in the day of his trial, after six years of opportunity.

At the outset it will be well for the reader to bear in mind that it was Mr. Roosevelt who said: "Words are good when they are backed up by deeds, and only so," and prepare to judge him in reference to this standard which he himself has set up. It would be manifestly unjust, however, to hold President Roosevelt as personally responsible for the non-enactment of laws, where he has earnestly, persistently and uncompromisingly striven to secure their enactment. His weakness, however, has been marked in two directions. In the first place, for the sake of the organization he has surrendered to the enemy when victory was in his hands and has made compromises with the anarchists of privileged wealth when there was no necessity for compromise. In the sec