here made will be found to be fully justified, if one is disposed to follow out the notes given below. Wars, 7. 8. 1; country suffers much, Hausrath, 1. 344; robbers encouraged, Ant. 20. 8. 5; country full of robbers, etc. Josephus, Ant, 20. 9. 4, 5; 20. 6. 1; Wars, 2. 3. 1; see Wars, 1. 8. 8; Romans hate the Jews, Wars, 3. 7. 1 ; 2. 9. 1-4; Romans insult the Jews, Wars, 2. 12. 2; Florus's conduct, Ant. 20. 11. 1; taxing the Jews, Weber and Holtzmann, 2. 247; increase of robbers, Traill's Joseph. 2. cxli, cxlii; Patronius, Ant. 18. 8. 2; Sabinius, Ant. 17. 10. 1,2; Pilate, Ant. 18. 3. 1; taxing terrible, Hausrath, 1. 169, 170; the great financial crisis in Rome in A.D. 33 affecting Palestine; see Hausrath, 1. 170, note; priests became corrupt, Ant. 20. 9. 2; poorer priests left to suffer and die, Ant. 20. 8. 8; see Tac. Hist. v. 9, 10; Annals, 12. 54; Jews forced by violence of Florus, to leave the country, Wars, 2. 14. 2; yet Cumanus does Jews a favor, Wars, 2. 12. 2 (he could hardly have refused to interfere in this case); Vitellius also does them favors, Ant. 18. 4. 2; 18. 5. 3; Sikars, originated in Jerusalem, Wars, 2. 13. 3; (Sikars were assassins with concealed weapons, Sica, hence Sicari); names and dates of procurators, see Schneckenburger, 207, 216. The revolt of Judas, son of Hezekias, on the death of Herod the Great, has sometimes been referred to, as showing the turbulent spirit of the Galileans. But the commotions at the time were wide spread, and by no means confined to one section; Judas in Galilee gets possession of Sepphoris; Simon makes an insurrection in Peraea, crosses the Jordan, and burns the palace in Jericho; two thousand of Herod's old soldiers make an insurrection in Idumaea; Athronges in Judea sets himself up as king; four parties in four different sections of the country keep the nation in tumult; all these in addition to the fierce outbreak at the Feast of Pentecost that year (May 31); Ant. 17. chap. 10; Wars, 2. chaps. 3 and 4; Lewin, B.C. 4, Nos. 931-935, pp. 128, 129. ARTICLE III. NATURAL REALISM; OR, FAITH, THE BASIS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. BY J. MACBRIDE STERRETT, ASSISTANT MINISTER OF CHRIST CHURCH, BROOKLYN, N.Y. I. FAITH THE BASIS OF SCIENCE. NOTHING is more common to-day than the confident assertion that truth is one, and so universal, immutable, and incapable of self-conflict or contradiction. But, notwithstanding this grand assertion, nothing is more common than to see the champions of truth in one department of knowledge contending bitterly with their co-laborers in other departments. There are extremists in science and in religion -- bigoted scientists and bigoted religionists men with irreligious bias and men with scientific bias. The first seem anxious to expel God from the universe, and the other to make God in their own image. The antagonism, or the supposed antagonism, between science and religion, shows itself in some religionists by their jealousy of science, and in some scientists in their supercilious attitude towards religion. The one party makes difference from itself the measure of irreligion, while the other party makes a corresponding difference to be the measure of absurdity and superstition. The old "odium theologicum" is no longer without a rival. It has a laterborn, but a stronger brother, in the rampant and unendurable odium scientificum. The older wanes and grows mellow and mild before the younger. Theologians, as a class, now show themselves most tolerant more than tolerant, even very friendly, towards science; while many scientific men show themselves most intolerant towards religion. Mr. Mivart, who is both a theologian and a scientist, tries to show that the most advanced scientific theories are not at variance with Christianity. But Mr. Huxley, who is only a - scientist, pursues him with bitterness. He seems determined. that there shall be no reconciliation, and boldly enters upon biblical theology to show that there can be none. Mr. Tyndall, too, more recently, has turned theologian, and tried to clarify the ideas of prayer which Christians generally hold. He tells them that prayer is a potency which he would like to see devoted to practical objects, instead of wasted upon the air that it may really strengthen the heart to meet life's losses and thus indirectly promote physical well-being, as the digging of Aesop's orchard brought a treasure of fertility greater than the treasure sought.1 Utter disregard of the Christian idea of prayer, and contempt for those who believe in spiritual realities, as much as he believes in material realities, characterizes this discharge of the "odium scientificum." Such scientific dogmatism, as well as a like theological dogmatism, only shows the bias that the exclusive pursuit of any one study, or exclusive work in any one department of knowledge, gives to any one. When the mind becomes accustomed to receive only a certain kind of truth, it is deadened to the perception and appreciation of other truth. Through disuse, the faculties which are given for the perception of other truth are lost, wrapped up in a napkin and hid. Then the knowledge which is obtained through one or more of the faculties, being partial, unrelated and uncorrected by its relation to other knowledge, is one-sided and untrue. Such a mind looks at everything through the distorted lenses of its special faculties, and thus sees only its specialty in everything. Thus the rules and measures of our special studies become the only rules which we use to measure every other sphere of truth. The kingdom of grace. is seen only as the kingdom of nature. Everything is referred to our one-sided selves, as the centre and circumference of the universe, and measured by our own personal, provincial, or professional dogmas. The one who gives his exclusive attention to science is thereby disqualified to judge 1 Littell's Living Age, No. 1483. of matters of religion, just as much as the one who devotes his whole attention to religion is unfitted to judge of matters of science. They each bring to the study of the other's sphere the faculties which are fitted for the study of their own sphere. The study of nature has never been with religionists what it should be. They have ever been absorbed in the supernatural realm, and have ever used their supernatural or moral and spiritual faculties, while they have regarded the external universe as the mere theatre for the moral drama of the alienation and reunion of God and man. And the tragic element in their relations to those who study the natural world as it should be studied has always consisted in their identifying their religion with some crude interpretation of nature which is soon shown to be false. But scientific men, whose work is confined to the natural world and to the use of the faculties fitted to grasp it, have likewise been onesided, and regarded the supernatural world only as a decent disguise for their remaining ignorance of the natural world. The tragic element, with them, is the continual manifestation of that spiritual power, which they deny because they cannot discover it with their senses, their understanding, or with their telescopes and microscopes. Thus each is led to undervalue or discredit the truths in the other's department, not because these truths are abhorrent to pure and whole reason, but because they are so different from their chronic and professional conception of the order of things. They startle their imagination, but are not therefore repugnant to their reason. It is for this reason that the modern scientific conception of the method of the universe so startles the exclusively religious mind, and that the Christian belief seems so unreasonable and superstitious to the exclusively scientific mind. But there are men, on both sides, who thoroughly understand and appreciate the labors of each other. President McCosh is a fair representative of the modern theologian, who not only appreciates scientific results, but is himself a co-laborer with the foremost scientists. And the late Professor Faraday well represents the modern Christian scientist. Indeed, theologians and religious men generally, now, not only acquiesce in, but welcome all the fresh knowledge of the material world which science can give. They have done away with what has always caused the tragic failures of their religious view of the natural world, i.e. the identifying their religion with any theory of the external world. They are ready to welcome every view of the universe that science opens, finding in every view fresh contributions to religion. Whatever may be the method of the universe, there is still the One Cause, who is their God and Father. But if religious men are losing their prejudice, and becoming sympathetic with science, we do not find a like breadth of appreciation and sympathy among scientists who are narrowing their minds by the exclusive use of one set of faculties, and their view of the universe by looking at it only on the material side. If religion no longer opposes science, yet do the students of science oppose religion. They are yet where religious men were when they opposed the Copernican view of the solar system, or any of the later scientific results of the study of the material world. If religious teachers no longer oppose, but aid scientists, yet do scientists oppose and wage warfare against religion. If the antithesis of science and religion is a threadbare subject, as old as the subjects themselves, yet is the relative position of the two somewhat changed to-day, when we see the one calling the other her friend and helpmeet, while it, in turn, discards the friendship. There is still need of keeping this question open to the fullest and freest discussion, in order, at least, to enlarge the breadth of scope and confirm the results of scientific students, as they have already done that for religious men. The day has passed when theologians tried to reconcile every new discovery of science with the teaching of revelation, by warping either science or the Bible to some special interpretation of the two, or by trying to show that the Bible itself taught all these scientific truths. Nor is any confidence put in the reconciliation which satisfied Baden Powell; he affirming that science and religion have no point of contact, no relation |