which the shrines of other divinities must suffer. Abstract impersonal thinking is seen to be but half the story and creates the desire for a more intense personal life. This seems to be the reason for the paradox and the extreme form which it takes in our day. The same fact is illustrated in the permanent characteristics of certain peoples. The British mind, for example, has been notoriously averse to any kind of problem which cannot be stated in the clearest common sense terms. And yet it is a nation of great poets.

Our rationalism and our dissatisfaction with it furnish the prime condition for a revival in religion, as the past well shows, and the question arises why history does not repeat itself in our day. One can hardly fail to be impressed by the close parallelism between the conditions at present and those which prevailed in the Roman world at the time of the pagan reaction. There is the same appeal to reason as the arbiter of all problems, and to a large extent the same appeal to cutand-dried systems of ethics for motives of conduct. In other words, there is the same surrender of life to thought, and what is of most importance for our purpose, the same feeling that this surrender ultimately entails not freedom but galling bonds. There was a revulsion of human nature, and its consequences every one knows. The finest, most consistent theories were discarded, and adherence given to all kinds of mystical oriental cults. Christianity prevailed over Greek philosophy, martyrdom prevailed over stoicism, nature prevailed over logic. Other examples of this dialectic of human nature are the succession of Methodism to Deism in England, and of Pietism to the Illumination in Germany. There is a fine irony in the fact which Brandes points out that many of the most important Romanticists who began their careers as exponents of illumination principles, found their ultimate end in the Catholic Church.

Why is there little probability of a religious revival at present? We are in a position to answer the question at least partially, if we put together some of the results of our analysis. We have seen that there are two chief factors in the religious consciousness, the personal, mystical attitude Vol. XV-No. 3.

24

coupled with the element of belief. In spite of the fact that so many believe that faith must be supported by doctrine, the history of religion shows exactly the opposite. Just as artistic feeling inspires the imagination to create appropriate situations in the various forms of art, so the religious feeling is the one necessary motive in the creation of religious systems. Given a sufficiently strong faith, intellectual difficulties fall into the background, and assent to doctrine comes as a matter of course. Logical proof of the existence of God is for the intensely religious nature a needless procedure. If, however, the religious feeling fails to reach the proper degree of intensity, a body of doctrine must justify itself as a philosophy. This is just the difficulty at present. Rationalistic investigation makes belief at the best a difficult matter, and the necessary element of faith is lacking. Why? Because music, the great modern art, can satisfy the mystical need, and indulge the cosmic emotion without asking assent to anything or putting the slightest strain upon purely thinking processes.

The reaction against rationalism is now on. All kinds of small mystical "isms" arise, make for a time absurd exhibitions of themselves, and then die out. Even the more respectable ones like Christian Science, Spiritualism and Theosophy are not remarkable for the educated intelligence of their adherents. The scientifically trained mind which is unable to play its mystical inclinations out in any kind of crude occultism, is willing enough to be religious, but its faith is not sufficiently strong to overcome the difficulties, so it follows the line of least resistance and listens to music, and this still more dulls the edge of faith. It might be answered that music, like the rest of the service, is a kind of "yoga," or preparation for the religious attitude. But it must be admitted that the true preparation provides a series of means which do not satisfy in themselves but create a larger demand. In so far as any part of the service is a work of art, it fails of its purpose. Our conclusion then is that the movement referred to at the beginning is based upon sound principles, but has probably undertaken a hopeless task.

Music and religion are rivals for the same claim in human nature, and so long as music occupies its present place in the general consciousness, we can look for no widespread revival in religion.

CLARK UNIVERSITY.

J. W. SLAUGhter.

THE SCOTTISH CHURCH CASE AND ITS ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

The first day of August, 1904, is a day which will never be forgotten in the history of religion in the British Islands. On that day the highest legal tribunal of the nation, after searching investigation, arrived at a decision which has had practical results that are serious indeed, while its moral consequences are immeasurably great. By that decision, eleven hundred churches in Scotland were at one stroke dispossessed of the whole of their property, valued at more than two millions sterling. Their congregations were left without meeting-houses, their ministers without manses, their students without colleges, and they were deprived of the whole of their invested funds. And all these things have been found legally to belong to a very small body of churches in the outlying districts of the north and west of Scotland-a body so small that it could not possibly make use of more than a fraction of the property now declared by law to belong to it. Extraordinary as this may be, it is, I repeat, the moral consequences of this declaration which are so great as to merit the attention of every intelligent man.

In dwelling on the circumstances which have brought about such a state of things, I speak from personal knowledge of the ecclesiastical situation in Scotland, and also with constant reference to the official report of the statements on both sides as presented before the law courts in Edinburgh and London.1 My object is, to discuss the essential principle involved in this famous case, and not to dwell on its merely ephemeral aspects.

"The Free Church of Scotland Appeals, 1903-4:" Authorized Report. Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace; London: Hodder and Stoughton.

We are aware that there is, and has been for more than two centuries, an Established Church in Scotland, which is also an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. These names require special notice. It is a Presbyterian Church: this means that its various constituent congregations are organized into "Presbyteries," for the term "Presbyterian" in its proper meaning has no doctrinal reference. But the Church of Scotland is also an Orthodox Presbyterian Church: this means that—whatever its ministers may publicly teach-the standard according to which it is supposed to interpret the Scriptures is strictly fixed. That standard as we know is called the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is not likely that many readers of these pages will ever have looked into that document. The fact is well known that many of the ministers and elders who sign it at their ordination have no proper acquaintance with its contents. It contains a complex and elaborate system of metaphysical theology; and among the chief of its declarations is the doctrine of "Predestination," which is stated as follows: "By the decree of God, and for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished" (Ch. iii, 3). The original and real meaning of this doctrine is that we know not how many human beings are condemned to never-ending torments in hell, irrespective of any earthly deeds, good or bad, of their own. This latter doctrine was the great question agitating the Christian Church throughout the world when (1647) the Westminster Confession was adopted by the Scottish Church; and in adopting the Confession, that Church consciously and deliberately adopted the fatalist doctrine in an unqualified form.

Once more, the Church of Scotland is an Established Church and this means that its standards of belief are fixed by law, and cannot be altered save by consent of Parliament.

Sixty years ago, grave abuses prevailed in the Church of Scotland, and of these the chief was "Patronage." Local land

lords claimed, and exercised, the right of appointing ministers, and if necessary of forcing them on the congregations without the least regard to the wishes of the people. This was no new thing sixty years ago; it had gone on for long periods previously; and it had led to several secessions, when small bodies of ministers found that they could endure such a state of things no longer, and left the Church, taking their people with them, and formed separate bodies based on the principle that any special connection between Church and State is mischievous and intolerable. But apart from these secessions, within the Church itself a Reform party came into existence, and grew stronger year by year. In the words of one of the JudgesLord Macnaghten-"They were the party of progress, of reform, and church extension. They planted religion in remote half-civilized districts of Scotland. They founded missions in all parts of the world. Their zeal and fervor were, as their adherents boasted, in striking contrast to the lukewarmness and apathy of the 'Moderates' (their opponents). And when they became the dominant party they carried matters with a high hand." They took measures which were altogether beyond the power of the Church as established by law; and the State refused to admit their claims. Very soon it became evident to all thinking men that "the leaders of Reform and those who adhered to them would have to retract their pretensions and own themselves defeated, or quit the establishment"; and no one who knew the temper of Chalmers and the other leaders of the Progressives could doubt what the issue would be. The disruption took place. On a memorable day in May, 1843, four hundred and seventy clergymen withdrew from the General Assembly and the Church-nearly half the entire number on the roll. In doing this, they gave up their incomes, their churches, their homes; and in this act of heroism, they founded what until the end of last century was called the Free Church of Scotland. This movement has been well described as "one of the noblest protests for religious liberty in modern times." We can form little idea of the hardships and sufferings through which the Church so founded rose to be an organized and working institution. But it did rise; and soon large funds