the writer of this paper to hold up the German gymnasia as faultless models, nor yet to advocate the unconditional imitation of German universities. Certainly, when thoughtful German scholars like Von Sybel, and experienced teachers like Peter, warn their own countrymen against the false methods that are prevalent there, it were well for us to pause before adopting every new device in teaching that is sanctioned by German authority.

How far the methods of the German university are applicable to our educational life, is a question which it is too late to open at the close of an article already too long, and it is possible that further suggestion may be as unwelcome as further faultfinding is sure to be. In brief, what we want is more thorough conviction on the part of our teachers of Greek and Latin, better drill and less science in the elementary classes, a wider range of reading for literary purposes, a separation of university work and college work in the last years of student life, and a resolute purpose to make an honorable position for the American people in this department of thought and culture as in others.

B. L. GILDERSLEEVE.

THE MATERIALIST REVIVAL AND THE MIRACLE

OF THE RAISING OF THE DEAD.

S general information upon scientific subjects spreads and becomes more popular, the differences of opinion upon those great questions which, although beyond the range of human intelligence, ever press for solution are brought more and more prominently into public notice.

Sometimes the scientific, sometimes the more religious aspect of a question is presented for public consideration, and the most difficult and abstruse problems are not unfrequently solved over and over again in our periodicals in the course of a few months. It is indeed doubtful if at any previous period in modern times matters of such overwhelming interest to every human being were more vaguely and carelessly stated and commented upon than has been the case during the past year or

two.

In this paper I propose to consider whether scientific facts can be adduced in support of the view that miracles were governed by physical law; but I must beg the reader to take particular account of the sort of facts and arguments which have been characterized as scientific.

son.

We witness at this time one of the most determined, and as may be shown, most unjustifiable efforts which the world has yet seen to establish materialism upon a basis of fact and reaThis new materialistic revival is essentially the weakest recorded, and would be simply laughed at if intelligent persons would but carefully and critically examine the facts and arguments upon which it is supposed to rest, and not allow their reason to be subjugated or disturbed by the very solemn de

meanor of its chief exponents. Let the reader only think for a moment what would have become of this new materialism could it have been exposed to the intellectual attacks of Socrates. Its chances would now be little better were it not for the polite indolence of many of the educated classes, for the general dislike of critical analysis, and for the ingenuity and audacity displayed by its disciples in assertion, interpretation, and evasion. It is no uncommon thing nowadays to find such questions as the structure, composition, relation, origin and destiny of man the nature of his consciousness, the question of free-will or necessity, the genesis of man's moral nature, and the probability of a future state expounded, discussed, and definitely determined in an hour's discourse, it may be to working men or women, or done into a magazine article that may be perused in half an hour.

A few months ago a lecture was delivered at Birmingham in which many assertions often repeated during the past few years, but still unsupported by facts, were yet again pressed for acceptance. Did any one in that Birmingham audience, or a single person out of the multitudes who read the report of that lecture in The Times next morning really believe that a machine might correctly be "defined as an organism"? Any intelligent schoolboy would take exception to that statement upon the ground that all machines are made in pieces, which are afterwards put together, while no organism can be so made. Even a mere child knows that organisms grow, and that machines do not grow. The action of inanimate machines has been compared with the action of living organisms; but is it not obvious that when men speak of the "life" of a machine and the "life" of a living organism they are using the same word in very different senses? Nevertheless, there is no doubt that many who will not take the trouble to think for themselves do allow their judgment to be influenced by these and many more equally unfounded assertions concerning such questions as man's moral nature and free-will, and allow themselves to be led by teachers who cannot or will not see that the differences between machines and organisms of every kind are absolute.

The public have been assured that human and all other actions of things that live are mechanical; that worlds and

bodies, minds, works, and hopes were once but fiery clouds, and that assuredly to fiery clouds will again return; that men are but automata, wound up for their day, but dependent upon the springs and wheels and levers which have somehow been evolved in their bodies, but which ere long will find their way to the melting-pot, in which they and their forces, their hopes and fears perish, with what is now supposed to be their identity, forever.

No wonder such assertions authoritatively made and repeated again and again shake belief and encourage doubts ever springing up in thoughtful minds as regards miracles and facts which Christians believe, but which have not been explained by law. No wonder such teaching excites and fosters in many minds a feeling bordering upon despair, and tends to destroy the very springs of hope. Upon others, however, a very different effect has been produced. In every new conjecture a new discovery is seen, which is to conduct us towards Universal Unity. Moreover, it has been often suggested that progress is not restricted to science, but that in religion also our views should change and should advance as they change. Progressive divines, anxious not to alienate the intellectual members of their flocks, and animated with a laudable desire to be included amongst the enlightened, discover in the idea that man is composed of matter alone a new and unexpected confirmation of a belief in a future state. In evolution they see the true origin of man by law, and as law necessitates a law-maker, they joyfully accept the new doctrine, and at the same time retain the belief that all things were made by God, and that without God was not any thing made that was made. Though man and monkey rejoice in a common derivation from ancestors whose habits were arboreal, was not such origin preordained? Though man be but an animal, is it not quite clear that he occupies among created things a sovereign position? And though man trace back his origin to preceding lowly forms, is not this particular mode of advance a proof of infinite wisdom, and do we not thus get a grander conception of the divine order of things than is gained by the contemplation of the received account of the creation? Can we not discern in the products of evolution the results of creative foresight, and are we not thus enabled to

carry ourselves back in imagination to that remote evolutional era when causation gave place to law, and matter began to reveal to sufficient intelligences and to privileged spirits its infinite promises and potencies, and became imbued with. potentiality of creative force which was to act through the ages and is to continue to act in ages yet to come?

Such are a few of the many suggestions which have been made from time to time in the hope of harmonizing conflicting views, and with the object of showing that if people accept materialism they need not discard Christianity. Though half, and more than half, the attributes of God be denied or explained away, accommodating concessionists suggest that enough, and more than enough, will still remain for the soul's comfort.

But by whom has it been shown that such concessions and such alteration of views concerning the foundations of the faith are necessary for truth's sake? What if it should be found upon careful critical examination that the tenets of the highpriests of the new philosophy are vague and confused, instead of being rigidly exact and clear? What if those who have been over-anxious to modify the old beliefs, so as to adapt them to the new order of things, should discover that they have been misled? What if the progressive theologian should find that the grand generalizations upon which his progressive theology has been founded are not, as he was led to believe, based upon demonstrative and demonstrable facts and experiments and observations made, repeated, and confirmed, but upon mere visions, dreams, and imaginings of brethren who affirm themselves to be so very scientific and so very strong that their conjectures must certainly prove infallible? Is there no danger that the spirit for accommodating, unreasonably indulged, may lead men to abandon important principles, or to modify them without sufficient reason? Is there no danger that, after having been drawn first in one direction and then in the opposite one, after having accepted confused and irreconcilable doctrines, men may find themselves carried along by the current more swiftly than they thought possible? Too late they discover that after all it is impossible to reconcile materialism and Christianity. What is to be done? Will they agree with Strauss