of such social observatories and explained the scientific principles of his vast enterprise, which did not deal with the individual primarily but with the entirety of those millions which we call people, nation, society, forming a higher unity or community within which individual variations disappear without disturbing the observations of larger and far-reaching phenomena. Such a comprehensive view embraces, so to speak, an anatomical, descriptive part, including the determinations of the ratios of sex, of age, of marriage, of general appearance and of bodily deficiencies, and a physiological part dealing with the ratios of births, deaths, crimes, etc. Out of these simple beginnings have grown in the course of time new branches of the historical sciences, dealing with social and economic influences. Moreover, the comparative study of life communities or life groups and their mutual relations gradually developed new interpretations of historical phenomena, which might be termed sociological interpretations. May it be hunger or economic distress which forces a people to struggle for more favorable conditions of existence; may it be religious fanaticism or national chauvinism which stirs up the masses and entices them to political revolutions; in every case such movements are always directed by one mass against another mass, may they be nations, races or social groups. There are no other political actions, there is no historic event which does not grow out of or express social antagonism, biologically termed "struggle for existence."

Historians may argue till doom's day whether the French Revolution was the work of the encyclopedists, the result of Voltaire's and Rousseau's revolutionary writings or whether it was caused by hunger, the fact remains that the so-called "third class" fell upon and destroyed the two higher classes, viz.: nobility and clergy. The same is true of our late Spanish-American war. Some say it was caused by commercial interests, others by party interests and still others maintain that pure humanitarianism was at the bottom of it, the fact remains that an AngloSaxon group attacked a Romanic nation, in order to take from it a desirable possession. All historic phenomena are in the end

conflicts of heterogeneous groups, be they national or social. This modern conception of history is not materialistic nor idealistic but sociological, and the logical outcome of the inductive method of modern science. It is here where natural law and historic law meet, the personal bias is ruled out, sociological law stands between the two. The modern historian dare no longer enter upon his work with preconceived notions, as, e. g., with the purpose to show what great leaders his country has had. He would naturally make an effort to ascribe all the historic events to the personal merits of these men, but he would not render any service whatever to historical science, with such proceedings. Individuality in this sense has only value when it embodies within itself the feelings, thoughts and desires of great groups; but even the activity of such political geniuses cannot be the object of scientific historiography; on the contrary the latter has to demonstrate how the various wants and interests of these groups resulting from social and economic conditions found expression in the personality of their leader.

If, e. g., a historian would try to ascribe the expedition of Alexander the Great against Persia to his desire for new undertakings and adventures, he would certainly find it impossible to reëstablish such a claim scientifically, for its source could only be some subjective biography written for the purpose of either flattery or reproach. But if we say, that a warlike mountainous people, suffering hunger in its barren habitation and obeying the impulse for self-preservation, found itself forced to the extremity, to descent into the fertile plains of Asia Minor and to overpower the rich, cultivated land of the next neighbor and to rob it of its treasures, then we utter a truth which can be proved always and everywhere under similar conditions; for this is a universal social phenomenon, it originates with the instinct of self-preservation common to all social groups. Of course, if the people suffering from want are a weak people, they will be forced to help themselves in some other way; this alternative shows the difference between natural law and historic law; the former shows always the same unchanging resultant of cause and effect, the

latter deals with intelligent purposes and means to carry them out according to conditions; it points to a Divine Providence and its methods to train and develop nations and races. It was hunger which drove the people of Israel into Egypt; it was dire distress which caused them to rebel against their taskmasters and to follow their divinely appointed leader through the Red Sea to the land of milk and honey.

It is impossible to discuss within the compass of this brief paper all the ethnographic, geographic and economic conditions which enter into the sociological consideration of the historical sciences; suffice it to state that the natural sciences, especially biology in its broad evolutionary aspect, have gradually led to the sociological treatment of history and have given the chief impetus to the social philosophy which is the characteristic work of our modern intellectual life. All scientific reasons testify that such results are the normal outcome of a healthy intellectual progress. These reasons are first, the possibility of knowing the truth, which is the ultimate end of all science; second, the demonstration of a natural process, which is the primary object of every science; finally the possibility of formulating the final laws of all social development which is the highest aim of all science leading from the empirical to the philosophical "world-view." The final salvation of humanity must come from such deepening and broadening of the human intellect through human knowledge, it is only in this wise that we can grow into the knowledge and stature of the perfect man. Happily, a broad intelligence is becoming more and more the common good of all; it is the business of education to see to it that it leads upwards to the knowl edge of Him, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even the Christ.

VI.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF RELIGION.

BY REV. GEORGE BARKER STEVENS, PH.D., D.D.

DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN YALE UNIVERSITY.

Psalm 103. 17, 18: But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto childrens' children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

There are two general ways in which we may think of the operation of the divine grace upon men. We may conceive of God as acting upon them directly, immediately; as it were, from above downward; or, we may think of Him as influencing our souls indirectly, mediately, through those divinely constituted relations in which he has set us. These two conceptions are in no respect inconsistent, and both correspond to reality; but I am sure that the latter is too little appreciated and emphasized. It will furnish us our subject on the present occasion.

These organic relations to which I refer are best represented by three institutions: The family, the church and the nation. The first is the most fundamental because it underlies both the others.

The Bible constantly emphasizes the social operation of divine grace. The primitive gospel, announced in Genesis, declared that God would bless all the families of mankind through the life and history of a single tribe or race. The Old Testament religion made much of the natural relationships of men; it taught that "the seed of the righteous is blessed." Christianity took up the same truth and its early progress was largely by the accession of households. Paul recognizes a continuity of familyreligion in whose great benefits Timothy has shared. He says:

"I have been reminded of the unfeigned faith that is in thee; which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and, I am persuaded, in thee also."

We may safely assume that this method of God in blessing the race through its organic relations can never become antiquated.

The subject, then, which these considerations suggest is this: The Significance of the Family for the Propagation of Religion.

The view which I wish to present is, that the Christian household is the principal "means of grace"; that the family is the chief factor in the preservation and upbuilding of the Church. In consequence of the power both of heredity and of environment, our connection with Christian parents, our organic relation with Christian society, infinitely surpasses (so far as we can judge) all other means whereby we are led on into the Christian life.

Let us first consider the religious significance of heredity.

The Christian world has always laid great stress upon the moral import of heredity in its doctrine of original sin, crudely as that doctrine has often been conceived. But beneath all the curious speculations of theology respecting original sin, there has lain a momentous truth-the truth of the significance of heredity for the moral life; the truth that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children-a truth to which modern science is adding impressive emphasis and ample illustration.

There is a tremendous fact corresponding to the old phrases: "original sin" and "hereditary sin," though in New England we prefer, as, I dare say, you also do, to use other phrases and speak of hereditary tendencies to sin," since it is an axiom in ethics that sin, in the strict sense, is voluntary and personal and cannot be transmitted by descent.

66

But how perfectly obvious it is-and this is the main point— that if heredity has so great a significance for the moral life, it must have it not only on the side of sin, but equally on the side of goodness. It is a very poor rule of nature or of morals which does not "work both ways." It is a great pity that the Church