assertion that "the history of what man has accomplished in this world is at bottom the history of the great men who have worked here." But the life of the great man is always socially conditioned both in its genesis and in its operations. Were it possible for his interests and ideas to become so entirely novel as to separate him completely from the common life of his contemporaries, history undoubtedly would adjudge him a freak rather than a hero. The significance of the individual mind is not necessarily obscured, but on the contrary may become more apparent, by a fuller recognition of the so-called social mind than was formerly customary among historians.

Furthermore, the will of the mass, whether operating unconsciously under the force of circumstances or voluntarily pursuing its own intelligent purposes, finds its characteristic expression in the institutional life of the group. For this reason the modern historian is quite as much interested in institutions as in persons. An established institution reveals more or less clearly the common habits and beliefs of a particular age, while an individual, however conspicuous, may not be truly representative of the historical process in the large, and indeed the more striking is his personality the less likely is he to be representative at all.

To restore a picture of ancient society in whole or in part along the foregoing lines is no easy task. One might fear that the "new" history had attempted the impossible. At best literary remains and archaeological finds are but secondary witnesses to the actual performances in real life of peoples long since deceased. True, their institutions may in some instances survive, but immediate contact with the vital social processes of antiquity is no longer possible. In this respect the students of modern society have a marked advantage over their colaborers in the historical field. It is only by the most rigorous effort to orient himself psychologically in the ancient world that the historian may hope to acquire the proper perspective and the trustworthy historical imagination necessary for his task.

Fortunately for modern historians, at the present time valuable assistance may be derived from workers in other fields closely related to the study of history. From the sociologist and the psychologist one may learn much about the nature of society both in its material and in its mental aspects. While it would be absurd to assume that modern civilization is merely a replica of ancient society, nevertheless it is unquestionably true that the more elemental interests and the characteristic impulses of the human species, particularly in its group life, have perpetuated themselves from generation to generation substantially unaltered. It is in the realm of presuppositions underlying thought and conduct that change has been most pronounced, but at this point the assistance of the anthropologist may be sought. Until within relatively recent times the scientific bases of modern thinking were quite unknown, hence the unscientific presuppositions entertained by primitive societies and individuals, as disclosed especially by the modern study of anthropology, may often be of far greater service than twentieth-century scientific concepts in helping the historian to orient himself within the life of the ancient world.

Such in barest outline are the more noteworthy principles of scientific method employed today in the field of historical study. We may now ask, in the second place, how a recognition of these principles affects the study of religion.

II

The historian who undertakes the study of religion is confronted at the outset by a serious challenge. Has he the equipment and capacity for dealing with the subject in hand? As a professed scientist his method of procedure must be strictly inductive; all of his conclusions are to be derived from concrete and empirically verifiable data. He lacks chart and compass for navigating those treacherous seas of poetic fancy, mystical emotion, and metaphysical speculation which in vary

ing degrees have always played a conspicuous rôle in all religions. To be sure, he possesses tolerably accurate instruments for measuring the extent to which such phenomena have been current in the past; he can trace with some degree of certainty their historical evolution; frequently he is able to define the circumstances by which they have been produced and maintained; and he can note the function served by them in the various religions. But beyond these experimentally ascertainable facts he, in the capacity of historian, may not go.

This is not to say that the historian would deny religion its right to be fancy free in exploring those regions of emotion and speculation that lie beyond the present boundaries of empirical knowledge. But he would distinguish sharply between his own task, as an observer and interpreter of historical data, and that of the speculative theologian whose principal concern has always been with problems lying outside the realm of experimentally attestable knowledge. The very nature of his science compels the historian to choose the former field for his operations. He works under the conviction that religion can be best understood by giving first attention, not to its theoretical aspects, but to its actual historical manifestations; and when speculative interpretations and historical research meet on common ground he will insist that all hypotheses be judged at the bar of his science.

In his search for the historic facts of religion the student who adopts modern methodology will aim ultimately to interpret religious movements, and only incidentally to expound sacred literatures. This observation, while true in connection with the study of all religions, is peculiarly in point for the student of Christianity. Particularly during the last halfcentury its sacred book, especially the New Testament, has been engaging the attention of numerous scholars. Scientific methods have been employed in recovering the most original form of its text, note has been taken of the circumstances under which its various parts were composed, and the documents

have been expounded as expressions of the minds of their several authors. These results are of immense significance for a historical understanding of the New Testament, but they are scarcely more than introductory to the work of the modern historian of early Christianity. His ultimate concern is with the real people who constituted the personnel of the Christian communities, and who acquired and exhibited their religion in actual life as members of a definite social order. When viewing religion thus as a vital factor in the social evolution of humanity, the historian clearly differentiates his task from both that of the speculative theologian and that of the distinctively biblical interpreter.'

When linked up thus inseparably with the evolution of society, religion must be viewed as essentially a developmental rather than a static phenomenon. Religions, like other factors in the social order, emerge and increase by a gradual process of growth from simpler to more elaborate forms. It is the business of the historian to follow the course of this evolutionary process from first to last. Within the last half-century this developmental conception has completely transformed our study of the ethnic faiths. Instead of assuming, as was formerly the custom, that heathen religions are the result of a degeneration from a purer and nobler type of faith, we now recognize that they are products of actual growth resulting from a gradual process of expansion increasing in complexity under the continued stimulus of social environment.

Perhaps it is less easy to appreciate the significance of the developmental conception of religion as applied to Christianity. Its history has usually been read not in the language of evolution but in terms of definite quantities of doctrine, custom, and organization. But modern historical study treats these entities as products of the Christian movement which itself is visualized and interpreted primarily as a process of historical As an indication of this growing interest in vital religion socially conceived, one may note that the present Journal of Religion supersedes a journal of "theology" and a "biblical world."

evolution in religious living on the part of persons and groups of persons affected very immediately by the contemporary social order.

In treating of factors that influence the evolution of religions, the historian is restricted by the very canons of his science to such items as can be discovered in the actual personal experiences of the devotees of a religion. For the student of Christianity in particular, this phase of modern method may prove at the outset somewhat disturbing. The time-honored custom of resorting to an alleged revelation, which is assumed to operate independently of ordinary human experiences, and the habit of regarding Christianity as inherently possessed of an unhistorically conditioned quantity of generative spiritual energy, not only has prejudiced one against considering seriously the possibility of normal social influences but has left nothing to be gained from this source of inquiry. This attitude of mind is incompatible with the method of the scientific historian. In discussing the question of genesis he insists that the fountains of empirical knowledge are to be exhausted before the problem is passed on to the metaphysician.

Consequently the modern student vigorously interrogates the environment in order to extract its secrets regarding the genetic forces that have gone into the shaping of religions. It should be noted that his concern is with concrete religions and not with religion in the abstract, for no mere historian can hope to snare this creature of speculative fancy. But where definite people and specific religions alone are involved, the question of environmental influences is capable of thoroughly scientific treatment. From the point of view of historical study, life in relation to surroundings is the primal stuff out of which religions evolve. They result from man's effort to secure and perpetuate the welfare of the group or of the individual in contact with environment, particularly in its less thoroughly mastered aspects.