too subjective and could be justified only by an exhaustive criticism of the theories with which he does not agree, a criticism which would be misplaced here and the writing of which would require a longer time of preparation than has now been allowed to him. A dry enumeration of the names of the principal writers and the titles of their works would be of little use, and would prove very little attractive to you. Therefore let me only add some words on the study of Comparative Theology.

The first, the predominating question is, is this study possible? In other words: What man, however talented and learned he may be, is able to command this immense field of inquiry, and what lifetime is long enough for the acquiring of an exhaustive knowledge of all religions? It is not even within the bounds of possibility that a man should master all the languages to study in the vernacular the religious records of all nations, not only recognized sacred writings, but also those of dissenting sects and the songs and sagas of uncivilized peoples. So one will have to put up with translations, and everybody knows that the meaning of the original is but poorly rendered even by the best translation. One will have to take upon trust what may be called second-hand information, without being able to test it, especially where the religions of the so-called primitive peoples are concerned. All these objections have not been made by me, for having the pleasure of setting them aside; they have frequently been raised against the new study and have already dissuaded many from devoting themselves to it. Nor can it be denied that they contain at least some truth. But if, on account of these objections, the comparative study of religions were to be esteemed impossible, the same judgment would have to be pronounced upon many other sciences. I am not competent to pass an opinion concerning the physical and biological sciences. I am alluding only to anthropology and ethnology, history, the history of civilization, archæology, comparative philology, comparative literature, ethics, philosophy. Is the independent study of all these sciences to be relinquished because no one can be required to be versed in each of their details equally well, to have acquired an exhaustive knowledge, got at the mainspring, of every people, every language, every literature, every civilization, every group of records, every period, every system? There is nobody who will think of insisting upon this.

Every science, even the most comprehensive one, every theory, must rest on an empirical basis, must start from an "unbiased ascertaining of facts;" but it does not follow that the tracing, the collecting, the sorting and elaborating of these facts, and the building up of a whole out of these materials must needs be consigned to the same hands. The flimsily constructed speculative systems, pasteboard buildings all of them, we have done away with for good and all. But a science is not a system, not a well-arranged storehouse of things that are known, but an aggregate of researches, all tending to the same purpose, though independent yet mutu

ally connected, and each in particular connected with similar researches on other domains, which thus serve as auxiliary sciences. Now the science of religion has no other purpose than to lead to the knowledge of religion in its nature and in its origin. And this knowledge is not to be acquired, at least if it is to be a sound, not a would-be, knowledge, but by an unprejudiced historical-psychological research. What should be done first of all is to trace religion in the course of its development, that is to say, in its life, to inquire what every family of religions, as for instance the Aryan and the Semitic, what every particular religion, what the great religious persons have contributed to this development, to what laws and conditions this development is subjected and in what it really consists. Next, the religious phenomena, ideas and dogmas, feelings and inclinations, forms of worship and religious acts are to be examined, to know from what wants of the soul they have sprung and of what aspirations they are the expression. But these researches, without which one cannot penetrate into the nature of religion nor form a conception of its origin, cannot bear lasting fruit unless the comparative study of religions and of religious individualities lie at the root of them. Only to a few it has been given to institute this most comprehensive inquiry, to follow to the end this long way. He who ventures upon it cannot think of examining closely all the particulars himself; he has to avail himself of what the students of special branches have brought to light and have corroborated with sound evidence.

It is not required of every student of the science of religion that he should be an architect; yet, though his study may be confined within the narrow bounds of a small section, if he does not lose sight of the chief purpose and if he applies the right method, he too will contribute not unworthily to the great common work.

So a search after a solution of these abstruse fundamental questions would better be left to those few who add a great wealth of knowledge to philosophical talents. What should be considered most needful with a view to the present standpoint of Comparative Theology, is this: Learning how to put to the right use the new sources that have been opened up; studying thoroughly and penetrating into the sense of records that, on many points, still leave us in the dark; subjecting to a close examination particular relig ions and important periods about which we possess but scanty information; searching for the religious nucleus of myths; tracing prominent deities in their rise and development, and forms of worship through all the important changes of meaning they have undergone; after this the things thus found have to be compared with those already known. Two things must be required of the student of the science of religion. He must be thoroughly acquainted with the present state of the research-he must know what has already been got, but also what questions are still unanswered; he must have walked, though it be in quick time, about the whole domain of his science; in short, he must possess a general knowledge of religions and religious phe

nomena. But he should not be satisfied with this. He should then select a field of his own, larger or smaller according to his capacities and the time at his disposal a field where he is quite at home, where he himself probes to the bottom everything, of which he knows all that is to be known about it, and to the science of which he then must try to give a fresh impulse. Both requirements he has to fulfill. Meeting only one of them will lead either to the superficial dilettantism, which has already been alluded to, or to the trifling of those doctores umbrarii, those Philistines of science, who like nothing better than occupying our attention longest of all with such things as lie beyond the bounds of what is worth knowing. But the last named danger does not need to be especially cautioned against, at least in America. I must not conclude without expressing my joy at the great interest in this new branch of science which of late years has been revealing itself in the new world.

THE REAL RELIGION OF TO-DAY.

BY MRS. LAURA ORMISTON CHANT.

DEAR FRIENDS,-After listening long enough to the science of relig ion, probably, as this is the last word this morning, it may be a little relief to run off, or leave the science of religion to take care of itself for a while and take a few thoughts on religion independent of its science. That religion will hold the world at last which makes men most good and most happy. Whatever there has been in this old past of the faiths that have made men more good and more happy, that lives with us to-day, and helps on the progressiveness of all that we have learned since. We have learned that religion, whatever the science of it may be, is the principle of spiritual growth. We have learned that to be religious is to be alive.

The more religion you have, the more full of life and truth you are, and the more able to give life to all those with whom you come in contact. That religion which helps us most to the most bravery in dealing with human souls, that is the religion that will hold the world. That which makes you or me the most brave in days of failure or defeat, is that religion which is bound to conquer in the end, by whatever name you call it. And believe me, and my belief is on all fours with that of most of you here, that religion which to-day goes most bravely to the worst of all evils, goes with its splendid optimism into the darkest corners of the earth, that is the religion of to-day, under whatever name you call it.

We are obliged to admit that the difference between the dead forms of religion and the living forms to-day is that the dead forms of religion deal with those who least need it, while the living forms of religion deal with those who need it most. Consequently to-day the real religiousness of our life, whether of the individual, the nation, or of the world at large, is that to-day we will not accept sin, sorrow, pain, misery and failure as eternal, or even temporary, longer than our love can let them be. And out of that has grown the feeling that has hardly taken on a name as yet, that the whole world—it has taken on a very practical name to those who hold it-out of that has grown a feeling which will not admit that God may do what it is wrong for man to do as an individual.

It is a strange turning around in the idea of our relationship to God that to-day, for the first time in the whole world's history, we are asking what is God's duty to us. To-day, for the first time in the world's history, we are certain that God's duty to us will be performed. For ages mankind asked what was his duty to God? That was the first part of his progress; but to-day you and I are asking, what is God's duty to us? And Oh, God