STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
The Journal of Religion
Volume I JANUARY 1921 Number 1
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION
SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE
University of Chicago
Professional historians have not always included religion
within the purview of their science. Toward Christianity in
particular their attitude has often been one of deliberate
reserve or outright indifference. The task of exploring this
phase of humanity's past has usually been left to the theologian,
who might or might not employ the methods of study approved
by historical science.
Fear of trespassing upon the preserves of the theologian
is probably not the sole reason for the historians' neglect of
religion, nor is this the only topic that he has been wont to
sUght. Frequently he has been content to chronicle the deeds
of militant princes or scheming statesmen, as though a record
of poUtical events constituted the sum total of history.
Scarcely a generation ago an eminent professor of modern
history at Oxford could still affirm that history is "past
poUtics." This penchant for politics has resulted in fixing
the gaze upon monarchs and battles and legislative chambers,
to the neglect of those more ordinary activities of mankind
which though less spectacular are none the less significant for
an understanding of the past.
Today the horizon of the historian is rapidly enlarging.
His vision ranges beyond the doings of kings and armies and
senates to the life of common humanity. Here he discovers
2 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
a complex stream of interest, thought, and action which has
been cahnly but imperiously moving on its course down through
the ages. It is not peculiar to one region or to one people,
but is the common denominator of all history from the very
beginning of man's existence down to the present moment.
Nations rise and fall, warriors and politicians come upon the
scene only to disappear from view, while the rank and file of
men in every age continue to make history in their own modest
fashion. Their quest for food and clothing and other neces-
sities of existence never ceases; they continue their struggle for
the acquisition of wealth and power; they constantly strive
to safeguard health and happiness through the establishment
of various social institutions; they seek aesthetic satisfaction
in the production of works of art and music and literature;
they search for wisdom in the fields of invention, discovery,
and intellectual discipline; and they ever yearn for protection
and help in the presence of those mysterious forces of the
universe which have so often become objects of fear, love, and
worshipful adoration.
With this widening of vision the historian is no longer
content to center attention simply upon political happenings.
The scope of his observation enlarges to include those common
daily interests which have characterized the life of men in
general at all times. But no one of these interests has been
more conspicuous or persistent than religion. Of hmnanity's
past it can still be said with a large measure of truth that
"a man's religion is the chief fact with regard to him — a man's
or a nation of men's" Therefore the study of religion falls
properly and of necessity within the domain of the historian.
During recent times the horizon of the theologian has also
been enlarging. Formerly he was concerned for the most part
with maintaining the validity of beUefs and practices cunent
in the religion of his own day. He was interested in the past
only as it was thought to furnish guaranties for the present,
and he unconsciously overlooked, or deliberately ignored as
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 3
unessential to his religion, those features of the past that he
found no longer tenable. He saw only the world of his own
immediate interests, and so did his work quite unaware of the
distortions that inevitably resulted from his lack of historical
perspective.
The developments of recent years have tended seriously
to disturb the accustomed complacency of the theologian.
The static world of yesterday has become the dynamic and
evolving universe of the twentieth century. Past and present
no longer coincide, but are clearly differentiated stages in the
historic process. This process of becoming is disclosed to
view throughout the whole range of mankind's experience, not
excepting even his religion. Hence the theologian is gradually
coming to recognize that religion — even Christianity— is a genu-
inely historical phenomenon and that if he is to remain master
in his own household he must learn the ways of the scientific
historian.
The appUcation of scientific historical principles to the study
of religion might be a somewhat simpler task if historians were
entirely agreed among themselves regarding their own method-
ology. But just as there is a " new " theology, whose propriety
and validity have often been called in question, so there is a
"new" history which has been gradually winning its way to
recognition in recent tunes. In the first place, we shall attempt
to state in summary fashion the distinctive characteristics of
this modem science of history.
Probably not even the most ardent champion of new
methods in the study of history would care to deny the funda-
mental importance of documents, or to abandon the slogan
"no documents, no history." If historical investigation is to
be in any sense scientific it must deal with concrete data.
Where specific documents or other sunilarly tangible evidences
from the past are lacking, no sound historical knowledge is
4 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
obtainable. The new history shares with the old the latter's
insistence upon the acquisition of accurate statistics.
On the other hand mere study of documents may become
a serious handicap to the would-be historian. The ultimate
unit in history is not the document, but the contemporary
social order, of which the document may have been merely
an incidental product. Yet sometimes the study of Uterary
records and archaeological remains becomes so inherently
absorbing that no appreciable effort is made to visualize the
social background necessary for the correct interpretation of
all historical data. One may be an expert in documentary
statistics and yet utterly ignore the task of the historian in the
larger sense of the term. The new history asks its represen-
tatives to make society rather than documents their point of
departure in reconstructing the story of the past.
Now society in any age is an exceedingly complex affair.
Even our professional sociologists, with the rich materials of
the present at their disposal, do not find it easy to unravel the
intricacies of the modern social nexus. Much less can it be
expected that the historian, dependent as he is upon relatively
meager sources of information, will be able to lay bare all the
secrets of society's life during the centuries that have passed.
Nevertheless acceptance of the social f)oint of view does
signify some very definite things for the historian's method.
At the very outset this social emphasis calls for the aban-
donment of the static conception of history attaching so readily
to the notion of documents, which by their fixity of form have
become specific entities for all time. Similarly the historical
institutions of any period or people have often been treated
as though they were fixed quantities that might be studied in
isolation from the social miUeu by which they were produced
and maintained. When, on the other hand, one centers
attention upon the great on-going process of society's evolution,
out of which documents and institutions have from time to
time emerged, histor}' can no longer be regarded as primarily
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 5
a study of static entities. Its more comprehensive and funda-
mental aim must be to exhibit, as far as possible, the on-flowing
currents of real life throughout the ages. Thus a developmental
conception of the past dominates in the method of the modern
historian.
Adoption of the developmental point of view in historical
thinking leads on to another important item in the definition
of method. Frequently historians assume that their task is
simply to describe, with such accuracy of detail as the records
may justify, the happenings of the past. They deliberately
refrain from attempting to discover the causes that have deter-
mined the course of events. So long as it was customary to
seek these causes entirely in the realms of supernaturalism and
metaphysical speculation the historian wisely left this quest
to theologians and philosophers. He, as a mere historian,
had no objective data from the realms in question. But when
historical processes are viewed as facts of social evolution they
become amenable to laws of empirical investigation and so
constitute a suitable subject for scientific inquiry. In fact
it is an established canon of the new history that he alone is
historically minded in the true sense of the term who sees the
happenings of the past in their proper genetic connections. To
have real historical knowledge one must be familiar, not only
with specific events, but also with the casual nexus underlying
phenomena.
Search for the genetic forces that enter into the determi-
nation of the historical process leads, further, to consideration
of the environment by which men of the past have found them-
selves surrounded. Since society in the last analysis is an
aggregation of hiunan beings more or less closely organized
and acting under the impetus of varied stimuH, the question
of environmental contacts justly occupies a place of consider-
able importance in the historian's attention. Peculiarities
distinguishing different groups of the hiunan family from one
another used to be dismissed offhand on the hypothesis of
6 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
inherent racial traits, but nowadays the influence of habitat
and cUmate is taken into account as among the significant
factors determining racial characteristics. Even within more
homogeneous groups the physical environment cannot be ignored
in one's quest for the genetic forces that have determined the
course of history
When observation is centered upon the smaller units of
society the importance of environment usually increases in
proportion to the minuteness of one's analysis. Within a
complex organism a multiplicity of social stimuli are in constant
operation shaping the direction of history. The power of
inherited customs and ideas is easily recognized by even a
casual observer in the field of social motivations. At times
crucial political experiences have furnished noteworthy incen-
tives for action. Less spectacular and also less sporadic in
its occurrence is the pressure of the never ceasing economic
quest in which the vast majority of men are always involved.
These are but a few of the more easily recognizable forces to
be taken account of by one who would even approximate a
full analysis of the genetic forces that operate within the
average social order.
While man is a social creature, it is also true that he is
possessed of both conscious and unconscious mental life. No
study of his past is scientific which does not recognize the
significance of the psychological factor in history. There is
on the one hand the mental life of the individual and, perhaps
more significant for history as a whole, the psychology of the
group. The mental interests and activities of the group, as
it reacts to heritages and environmental stimuU, determine
the social customs of any particular age or people. It is also
in this psychological world of the mass, so to speak, that new
tendencies and convictions, emerging from time to time in the
course of historical evolution, attain general recognition.
The new history does not deny the great man a place in
its esteem, nor would it necessarily reject outright the famiUar
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 7
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
imconsciously imder 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 beUefs of a par-
ticular 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 personaUty 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 co-
laborers 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.
8 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
Fortunately for modem 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 unques-
tionably 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 modem 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 himseK within the life of the
ancient world.
Such in barest outhne 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 recog-
nition of these principles affects the study of rehgion.
II
The historian who undertakes the study of reUgion 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-
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION g
ing degrees have always played a conspicuous role in all
religions. To be sure, he possesses tolerably accurate instru-
ments 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 his-
torical data, and that of the speculative theologian whose
principal concern has always been with problems l)dng 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 manifes-
tations; 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 inter-
pret 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 durmg the last half-
century 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
lO THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
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 modem
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 rehgion
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 for-
merly the custom, that heathen religions are the result of a degen-
eration 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 con-
tinued stimulus of social environment.
Perhaps it is less easy to appreciate the significance of the
developmental conception of religion as apphed to Christianity.
Its history has usually been read not in the language of evolu-
tion but in terms of definite quantities of doctrine, custom,
and organization. But modem historical study treats these
entities as products of the Christian movement which itself is
visuahzed 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 Jot<rnal of Religion supersedes a journal of "theologj'"
and a "biblical world."
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION ii
evolution in religious living on the part of persons ^nd groups
of persons affected very immediately by the contemporary
social order.
In treating of factors that influence the evolution of reli-
gions, 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 consider-
ing 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 metaphy-
sician.
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 indi-
vidual in contact with environment, particularly in its less
thoroughly mastered aspects.
12 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
It follows that the vital interests which are dominant at
any particular period or in any specific community, and the
means available for the satisfaction of these interests, are,
historically speaking, the determining factors in the making
of a rehgion. Except in the most primitive of societies, these
factors are exceedingly complex and the task of the historian
is correspondingly difficult. But no study can hope to approxi-
mate accuracy and completeness if it omits analysis of the
surroundings amid which the adherents of any specific religion
live. Even the common place facts of habitat and climate
are not without their influence. The Iranian plateau, the
mountain-girt districts of Greece, the detached territory of
Palestine, all left their mark in one way or another upon the
religion of their respective inhabitants. Frequently poUtical
events have affected very materially the course of religious
history. Not less significant, though much less frequently
observed, are those incentives which operate in the sphere of
common daily experience. These more ordinary social motiva-
tions may emerge in the form of economic interests, group
rivalries, or a host of other elemental impulses, all of which
must come under the observation of the historian in his study
of religion. And in case of a religion which emerges and devel-
ops within a social order already highly organized, as was the
case with Christianity, the fact of acquisitions derived from
predecessors and contemporaries becomes peculiarly important.
That the student of religion should be fully cognizant of
the psychological factor in history goes without saying. In no
other realm of human experience does mental life, whether
of the individual or of the community, figure more prominently.
Conversion experiences, ecstatic visions, marvelous revelations,
and other mental phenomena both ordinary and extraordinary
are always in evidence. The student who ventures upon the
interpretation of these items without some knowledge of
modern psychological science will find himself greatly hampered
in his work; and he will be a bUnd guide indeed if he fails to
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 13
appreciate the immense influence which psychological interests
have exerted within the sphere of religion at all times.
The student of religion needs especially to be reminded of
the significance of institutions as a factor in history. There
is a very strong temptation to be content with portraying the
careers of distinguished individuals, or recounting the popular
myths, or expounding theological systems. But one who
should desire, for example, to comprehend the real significance
of religion as a fact of Ufe among the Greek people, would
hardly find his quest satisfied in the Homeric description of
the Olympian deities or in the theogony of Hesiod. The Greek
religion of real life is to be discovered most truly from a study
of specific cults operating as institutionally organized move-
ments. But this latter aspect of reUgion often lacks those
picturesque features that appeal to the imagination and accord-
ingly its importance for the historian is not always appreciated.
Similarly among interpreters of Christianity, particularly in
Protestant circles, interest in persons and dogmas has com-
monly towered far above interest in institutions. Modern
historical method calls for a correction of this one-sidedness
and emphasizes the fundamental place of institutional activities
in the evolution of religions.
In the pursuit of these various lines of inquiry the historian
of religion no less than his colleague in the so-called secular
field — and perhaps even to a greater degree — ^needs the assist-
ance of co-workers in allied departments of research. From
the sociologist he seeks information regarding those social
motivations and activities that may be found to characterize
the life of mankind. To the psychologist he goes for knowledge
of the ways in which mental interests may determine the
behavior of individuals and communities. And the anthro-
pologist may render him indispensable service by making more
clear the contrast between the presuppositions of a primitive
age and those postulates by which he as a man of the twentieth
century is accustomed to regulate his conduct and thinking.
14 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
III
Finally, we may ask what practical value results from the
application of scientific historical methods to the study of
religion ? It is a very old notion that history is "the handmaid
of providence, the priestess of truth, and the mother of wisdom."
For centuries men have been accustomed to look upon the past
as the unique source of ideals and norms for the guidance of
life in the present and the future. Within the sphere of religion
this reverence for antiquity has often been enhanced— as is
the case for example in Judaism and Christianity — ^by resorting
to the hypothesis of a special revelation to guarantee the
authority of ancient customs and beUefs. From this point of
view it is the business of the student to derive from history,
especially from the history of religion, authoritative examples
and normative precepts without which subsequent generations
would be quite incapable of realizing a worthy type of life.
And such reformers as may appear from time to time must
make their egress out of the past into the present with their
faces turned steadfastly toward antiquity.
BeUef in the normative function of history rests ultimately
upon that pessimistic philosophy of life which interprets the
present as a deterioration of humanity, a condition to be
remedied only by the restoration of an idealized past. This
was a widespread mode of thinking among the ancients, who
were wont to believe that remote antiquity veiled a golden age,
in comparison with which present times were sorely degenerate.
But when history is viewed scientifically, as an evolutionary
process in human living, the past inevitably loses its authori-
tative character. The order of progression throughout the
ages is seen to be from the simpler to the more complex, and
there is no discoverable warrant for affirming that the attain-
ments of any past age should be regarded as normative for
all subsequent times. There is no apparent reason for pre-
ferring the past above the present, or for rejecting the poet's
hope that "the best is yet to be."
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 15
Cultural features of a past age are to be evaluated strictly
from the standpoint of their social and functional significance.
The extent to which they meet the needs — ^both material and
spiritual — of mankind in a particular age and environment,
is the true measure of their worth for the people of that day.
Likewise, their value for subsequent generations will be con-
ditioned by pragmatic tests. Where environments repeat
themselves substantially unchanged for a succession of years
and the great mass of human interests moves along in accus-
tomed channels, the cultural attainments of an earlier day
easily retain their grip on society and assume the dignity of
an absolute authority. But a radical change in surroundings
or a powerful awakening of new interests leads sooner or later
to revolutions and reformations. This fact is seen to be true
of all history whether in its secular or in its religious aspects.
Thus one very significant result of modern historical study
is the deUverance which it gives from bondage to the past as
an ideal for modem living. But to abandon the notion of
normativeness does not mean a denial of history's value for
the man of today and tomorrow. On the contrary, it takes
on a new and larger meaning in the light of modem methods.
One is able now to understand as never before how present
society in all its various phases has actually come into being.
Viewed as an evolutionary process, the course of history dis-
closes how existing institutions and beUefs have arisen through
the operation of definite genetic agencies within the life of
humanity. Thus one is led to realize that the character of
future societies will also be determined, not by forces acting
from without, but by a process of vital growth from within.
This fact emphasizes in a new and helpful way that the oppor-
tunity for bettering mankind's condition and the responsibility
for accompUshing this task he with men themselves.
History also has a significant word to say with regard to
the nature of the reformer's ideal. The normativeness of
criteria adopted from antiquity is found to be illusory.
i6 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
Whether a new social order is to be "good" or "bad" will
depend entirely upon the degree to which it satisfies the vital
needs of real people then Uving. At first glance the student
of religion in particidar may hesitate to accept this dictum of
the historian, for religion has been accustomed to insist perhaps
more strenuously than any other phase of our culture upon the
authority of the past. Yet historical inquiry readily shows
that even the rites and dogmas of rehgion have not been able
to withstand permanently the imperious demands of prag-
matic necessity. Once upon a time it could have been held —
and in fact was so held — that to accept the Copemican astron-
omy would mean a rejection of authoritative Christian teaching.
Nevertheless the views of Copernicus have triumphed, for they
have come to be regarded by men in general as necessary
to intelligent thinking about the heavenly bodies.
The mighty pressure of human needs, as they increase in
extent and intensity, cannot be resisted for long even by the
powerful conservatism of reUgions, and one who has read
history wisely will not be found spending his energies in a
futile effort to lay the dead hand of the past upon the spon-
taneous life of the future. History teaches the prophet that
he must justify his message, not by the norm of theory, but by
the mandate of efficiency, and that ultimately he must derive
his sanctions not from the past but from the future. The
attainment of this conviction cannot fail to mean in the end
a tremendous gain in effectiveness among all classes of workers
for the advancement of human welfare.
It may not be inappropriate to note in passing that history
raises many a signal of warning for the well-meaning enthusiast
who would transform an old order into a new with a single
turn of the wheel. The process of social change is necessarily
slow, and transformations, to be genuinely effective, must
inhere in the very structure of the evolutionary process. This
is a fact needing to be noted particularly by students of religion.
Programs hastily superimposed, before a general demand has
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION 17
been awakened for the values they aim to conserve, are fore-
doomed to failure. How often zealous prophets of a new day,
lacking the steadying power that might have been derived
from a better knowledge of history, have gone down to defeat
chiefly in consequence of their determination to save the world
by their favorite program in their own generation! But the
mills of the gods grind slowly in the making of history as in
the administration of justice.
Although history may not yield authoritative norms for
future conduct, has it no prophetic function? Does it not
reveal laws that enable one to forecast the destiny of man
from the handwriting on the walls of time? Having at the
outset relinquished the privilege of appeaUng to metaphysics,
the historian is unprepared to affirm that there is an abstract
theological principle governing the progress of social evolution.
He hesitates also to posit for history a mechanistic order of
development fashioned after the analogy of biological laws.
He recognizes that social progress moves forward by the method
of trial and error, so to speak, and that the course of develop-
ment is on the whole determined by forces inhering within the
social order itself, but to predict the exact way in which these
complex factors will combine to produce the society of the
future is too venturesome an undertaking for the historian.
Even though he aspires to no prophetic function, the
modern student of history is not without his faith in the future.
To be sure, adherence to his scientific principle of empirical
research makes him unwiUing to seek guaranties beforehand
either in a metaphysical theory or in a biological analogy, but
he is gravely impressed with the stately progress of society's
evolution throughout past ages. Man is seen keeping step
with the rest of the universe — nay, leading the van — ^in the
procession of the ages. And that confidence which is born of
faith in the future of the cosmos carries with it faith in the
future of society. Thus derived, the laws of history are laws
of the universe, and the laws of the universe are laws of God.
