xperience, interpreted
too hastily, and the rationalized whole.

Science arose at the time of the Renaissance as a {63} consequence of
man's awakened curiosity. Its first conquests were in the fields of
astronomy and physics. These were of such a striking character that
they gave this comparatively new movement a prestige which stood it in
good stead in time of trouble. Gradually, an assured technic was
developed, and inductive tests made of every hypothesis which suggested
itself. For a considerable time, science was confined pretty
definitely to the physical world; but it was inevitable that the mental
habits encouraged would sooner or later extend themselves to other
fields. While there were many tentative applications of the methods
and ideals of inductive science to the field of history in the
eighteenth century, it was not until the nineteenth century that the
science of history was fully developed. Our conception of the past has
become progressively deeper and truer. Romanticism has been replaced
by a realism which calls anthropology, archeology, and modern
psychology to its aid. We wish to see the men of the past as they
actually were; and we are quite aware that we know more about the world
than they did.

In the domain of biblical literature and comparative religions, the
method of science was slow of application. There was a tremendous
inertia to overcome, and a strong spirit of positive antagonism to
resist. The whole system of hopes and fears, sanctions and taboos,
which the ancient view of the world had fostered within the human
breast cried out against the sacrilege of rational investigation.
Humanity hugs illusion more fondly than it does truth because it is
more familiar with it. For a while, all that orthodoxy had to contend
with was a rationalism of a skeptical cast which had scarcely a better
historical outlook at its {64} command than had its opponent. It could
assert that these stories and beliefs handed down from the past could
not be true because they conflicted with our experience; but it could
not explain why people had originated these ideas and why they had
believed in them so implicitly. In other words, it could not let the
past explain itself in such a natural way that it would disprove its
own beliefs. It is this that modern research has done so thoroughly
that there is scarce need for the appeal to the constructive sciences
which skeptical rationalism makes. The battle is