Perhaps the most fruitful work in this direction which could be done by the linguists themselves would be to examine very carefully the age of the vocabularies of the oldest of the Pentateuchal documents, and sift out, if possible, the more ancient from the words of later origin or form, and this might reveal to what extent these narratives as we have them in our present form, have a verbiage which could be traced in the Assyrian documents which we already have. The percentum of words which have an Assyrian equivalent, apart from the cognate connection, would easily show the possibility, or even the probability, of transcription from Assyrian originals; and this in turn would lead to a closer inspection of the ideas contained in them with reference to Assyrian parallelisms. This is in the line of a suggestion made at the Ninth International Oriental Congress, which urged more direct work with the language itself, in the hope of producing so much material for comparison as to make the argument more useful, as well as more intelligible, for inferential uses. At all events there is here a very interesting possibility, and there is good reason to believe that persistent investigation will lead to important and startling results.

ARTICLE XIII.

CRITICAL NOTE.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. ROMANES AND MR. GULICK.

SINCE the article by Mr. Gulick on "Christianity and the Evolution of Rational Life" and our introductory note to it were in print, the preliminary correspondence which called it forth has come into our hands with permission to make it public. The case is so interesting that we can render no greater service to the truth than by availing ourselves of the priv ilege.

Under date of December 25, 1890, Mr. Romanes wrote to Mr. Gulick a somewhat lengthy letter, devoted for the most part to matters relating to a discussion he was then carrying on with Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, and in which Mr. Romanes, in support of his side of the contention, was making free use of material furnished him by Mr. Gulick. After concluding the strictly scientific part of the letter, Mr. Romanes turns to thoughts which were even then uppermost in his mind, and writes as follows:

"For a long time past I have been meditating upon the possibility of putting to you a question which I have feared you might deem unpardonably impertinent, and this in both senses of the word. But on this Christmas day I cannot avoid the 'cumulative' temptation. My only excuse is the twofold statement that the question is not put from any merely idle curiosity, and that it is put on account of the very great value which I attach to the extraordinary analytical powers of your thought.

"The question which-for my own benefit alone-I want to ask is, How is it that you have retained your Christian belief? Looking to your life, I know that you must have done so conscientiously; and, looking to your logic, I equally know that you cannot have done so without due consideration. On what lines of evidence, therefore, do you mainly rely? Years ago my own belief was shattered-and all the worth of life destroyedby what has ever since appeared to me overpowering assaults from the side of rationality; and yours is the only mind I have met with, which, while greatly superior to mine in the latter respect, appears to have reached an opposite conclusion. Therefore I should like to know in a gen. eral way how you view the matter as a whole; but if you think the ques

tion is one that I ought not to have asked, I hope you will neither trouble to answer it, nor refuse to accept in advance my apology for putting it. "GEORGE J. ROMANES."

Mr. Gulick's reply was written from Osaka, Japan, March 7, 1891. The part of it relating to the subject in hand is as follows:

"In response to your inquiries as to my views concerning the main lines of Christian evidence, I have written out a few thoughts which I enclose with this. They only suggest certain methods of approach to the subject which seem to me helpful in reaching right conclusions. If a fuller statement of my thoughts on any point is desired, I shall be very willing to give what I can, though I have the feeling that my best thoughts are crude compared with what is accessible to you in such a center as Oxford.

"Still I know there are some advantages in 'isolation,' and a missionary has some special opportunities for certain lines of direct observation.

'If I knew what part of the subject was engaging your thought, I should possibly be able to make suggestions that would avail more, even if I am not able to give any new light. I shall be very glad to compare notes on any point.

"Yours truly,

"JOHN T. GULICK."

Soon after this correspondence, it is evident from passages in Romanes' volume entitled "Darwin and After Darwin," published in 1892 (pp. 411– 418), that his views were undergoing important modifications. Instead of maintaining then, as formerly, that natural science was “a virtual negation of God," he says:

"Like all previous advances in cosmological theory which have been wrought by the advance of science, this latest and greatest has been that of revealing the constitution of nature, or the method of causation, as everywhere the same. But it is evident that this change, vast and to all appearance final though it be, must end within the limits of natural causation itself. The whole world of life and mind may now have been annexed to that of matter and energy as together constituting one magnificent dominion, which is everywhere subject to the same rule, or method of government. But the ulterior and ultimate question touching the nature of this government as mental or non-mental, personal or impersonal, remains exactly where it was. Indeed, this is a question which cannot be affected by any advance of science, further than science has proved herself able to dispose of erroneous arguments based upon ignorance of nature. For while the sphere of science is necessarily restricted to that of natural causation which it is her office to explore, the question touching the nature of this natural causation is one which as necessarily lies without the whole sphere of such causation itself: therefore it lies beyond any possible intrusion by science. . . . Such being, as it appears to me, the pure logic of the matter, the proof of organic evolution amounts to noth

ing more than the proof of a natural process. What mode of being is ultimately concerned in this process-or in what it is that this process ultimately consists—is a question upon which science is as voiceless as speculation is vociferous" (pp. 413–414).

In his earlier volume entitled “A Candid Examination of Theism," by Physicus, published in 1878, Mr. Romanes had written:

"Forasmuch as I am far from being able to agree with those who affirm that the twilight doctrine of the 'new faith' is a desirable substitute for the waning splendor of 'the old,' I am not ashamed to confess that, with this virtual negation of God, the universe to me has lost its soul of loveliness; and although from henceforth the precept to 'work while it is day' will doubtless but gain an intensified force from the terribly intensified meaning of the words that 'the night cometh when no man can work,' yet when at times I think, as think at times I must, of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the only mystery of existence as now I find it,--at such times I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my nature is susceptible."

It is as gratifying as it is significant of the trend of modern thought, to learn that this noble mind came at last to see the truth more clearly as foreshadowed in his posthumous volume "Thoughts on Religion," reviewed in our last number. After perusing this volume, one is not surprised to learn from Canon Gore, his spiritual adviser, that Mr. Romanes "returned before his death to that full, deliberate communion with the church of Jesus Christ which he had for so many years been conscientiously compelled to forego." It is significant, also, that a few days after her husband's death, Mrs. Romanes wrote to Mr. Gulick, telling how Mr. Romanes was engaged in literary work until an hour before his death, and then adds: "His unselfishness and patience during these two years was something marvelous; and during the last few months he had seen his way to facing many difficulties, and God had given him light and help."

ARTICLE XIV.

SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES.

PROFESSOR EDWARD W. BEMIS

AT the solicitation of the editors, Professor Edward W. Bemis, late of the University of Chicago, has consented to write regularly for the BIBLIOTHECA SACRA for 1896, giving especial attention to applied ethics, economics, and civics. This invitation was extended to Dr. Bemis because we desire that our readers shall become acquainted with him and with the departments of thought to which he has given especial attention, and in which he is an undoubted authority, such as municipal, monopoly, and labor problems.

THE MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP

of the natural monopolies, with which his name has been largely associated, is a consummation devoutly to be wished by many of the best economic thinkers of to-day. However widely scholars may differ as to the precise amount of injustice inherent in our present social system, and however strong may be the contention as to the best means of attaining the ideal, there is a growing conviction and a greater unanimity among them as to the desirability and probability of the ultimate public ownership of public works and franchises.

THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSOR R. T. ELY

in this direction has been far-reaching and beneficial, and it is quite needless to explain that Dr. Bemis is one of his best pupils and most earnest followers.

It is in this department of thought, no less than in others, that Dr. Bemis is an authority, and we are quite sure that our readers will discover no banks of fog or no mists from Lake Michigan rolling in upon them to obscure the subjects upon which he writes.

THE SENSELESS CHARGE OF BEING SOCIALISTIC

is brought just here against such writers as Professor Ely and Professor Bemis. But it has its origin in a want of discrimination as to what socialism really is.

A consistent socialist advocates the ultimate ownership by the State of all the means of production. This must include, of course, the natural monopolies. Hence, the advocate of the municipal ownership of water