UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Class 
 
STUDIES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 PHILOSOPHY OF EELIGION 
 
STUDIES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 PHILOSOPHY OF EELIGION 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE GALLOWAY, B.D. 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 FORMERLY EXAMINER IN PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ST ANDREWS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 Of 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
 MCMIV 
 

 SENERAL 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 THIS volume does not claim to be more than its 
 title indicates. I have not attempted, more Ger- 
 manico, to deal with the subject systematically. 
 On the one hand, I doubt my own competency 
 for the task ; and, on the other hand, it seems 
 to me that in the present condition of speculative 
 thought such an attempt is hardly desirable. But 
 the reader will find that the following essays, so 
 far as they go, form a fairly connected treatment. 
 All I can hope is that at points I have dealt sug- 
 gestively with a deeply important subject. 
 
 The fourth essay is the statement of a philos- 
 ophical position, which I try to develop and apply 
 to religion in the essay which follows. It is 
 reprinted by kind permission from * Mind/ My 
 cordial thanks are due to my friend, the Eev. D. 
 Frew, B.D., for valuable aid in revising the proof- 
 sheets. 
 
 G. G. 
 
 CASTLE-DOUGLAS, N.B. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ESSAY I. 
 
 HEGEL AND THE LATER TENDENCY OP KELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY 3 
 
 ESSAY II. 
 
 THE NATURAL SCIENCES, ETHICS, AND RELIGION . . 41 
 
 ESSAY III. 
 
 RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT : ITS HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION 97 
 
 ESSAY IV. 
 
 ON THE DISTINCTION OF INNER AND OUTER EXPERIENCE . 169 
 
 ESSAY V. 
 
 THE ULTIMATE BASIS AND MEANING OP RELIGION . . 209 
 
 ESSAY VI. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: THE RITSCHLIAN STANDPOINT 291 
 INDEX 325 
 
ESSAY I. 
 
 HEGEL AND THE LATER TENDENCY OF 
 RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY 
 
ESSAY I. 
 
 IT may be well to state at the outset the object we 
 set ourselves in the present paper. We have no 
 idea of attempting to give a history of the Phil- 
 osophy of Keligion from Hegel to the present day. 
 That has been already done, and by more competent 
 hands. Our aim here is a more restricted one. We 
 wish to compare and contrast the method and spirit of 
 later religious philosophy with the method and spirit 
 in which the subject was treated by Hegel. To go 
 into the details of the treatment, however, lies 
 beyond the scope of the essay. We shall deal more 
 particularly with the attitude of reason to religion, 
 trying to show the difference which becomes more 
 and more apparent between the view of later 
 thinkers on this point and the view of Hegel. The 
 result, we think, will be to show that there has been 
 a very marked process of change. This change 
 corresponds to a general change in the philosophic 
 standpoint. The consequence has been new ways 
 
4 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 of regarding religion and its problems. We shall 
 see that the earlier tendency was to exalt reason, 
 while the later makes much of feeling : the earlier 
 thinkers sought to offer something like a complete 
 explanation, while the later are burdened with a 
 sense of the limitations of knowledge and the 
 defects of human insight. Or, what is the same 
 thing from a slightly different point of view, we 
 begin with a strong constructive movement which 
 gradually exhausts itself, to be followed by a 
 sceptical and critical tendency. 
 
 We propose, then, to begin our review with 
 Hegel's ' Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.' * 
 Hegel's work is the first profound, comprehensive, 
 and systematic treatment of the whole subject. It 
 marks the rise of a distinct and influential tendency. 
 Moreover, Hegel was the first who sharply defined 
 the problem of Religionsphilosophie, and gave the 
 subject a determinate place in the body of the 
 philosophical sciences. From that time the general 
 scope of the science and the broad outlines of its 
 
 1 Hegel's ' Vorlesungen iiber die Philosophic der Keligion ' were 
 published in 1832, after his death. A 2nd edition, forming vols. xi. 
 and xii. of his collected works, was issued in 1840. I have given 
 the titles of the works referred to in the course of the paper, but 
 have not thought it necessary to burden the article with continuous 
 references to the pages of the books themselves. I have taken pains 
 to present accurately the views of the different writers. But if any 
 one desires to verify my statements, he will, I think, have little 
 difficulty in doing so. 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 5 
 
 treatment have been more or less fixed. Earlier 
 discussions of religious problems present us with 
 the religious aspect of philosophy rather than the 
 Philosophy of Keligion in the modern sense. 1 
 
 Hegel was the strong son of an age when hopes in 
 speculative effort ran high. As we all know, philos- 
 ophy was for him denkende Anschauung der Welt, 
 and he believed the universe must yield its secret 
 at the pressure of thought. Logic lays bare the 
 structure of the Absolute, and the philosopher 
 traces its dialectic evolution in the spheres of 
 nature and mind. In that evolution religion has 
 its place, and its essence and meaning can be 
 speculatively determined in the systematic whole 
 of things. That place, we may remind our readers, 
 is in the domain of mind which has become absolute 
 spirit, and midway between Art and Speculative 
 Philosophy. Religion manifests the Absolute in the 
 form of representation (Vorstellung), while philos- 
 ophy grasps it as the notion (Begriff). So religion 
 shelters no mystery which thought cannot penetrate. 
 
 Hegel's general method is now tolerably familiar 
 to us in this country. First an idea, or concept, is 
 analysed; then it is shown by its own immanent 
 movement to specify or differentiate itself in the 
 judgment ; and finally it issues in the conclusion, 
 the concrete and individual whole. Applying this 
 
 1 As in the case, e.g., of Leibniz and Kant. 
 
6 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 method to the matter on hand, he analyses the 
 general or abstract concept of religion, and then 
 passes to the historic religions as specific forms of 
 the religious idea, and finally treats Christianity as 
 the absolute or consummated notion of religion. 
 
 Without denying the high merits of Hegel's 
 work, it is clear to us that it has also grave defects. 
 In his reaction against Schleiermacher and the 
 Romantic School, Hegel ignores the great import- 
 ance of feeling in the religious consciousness. If 
 the "feeling of dependence" were the essence of 
 religion, then, he remarks scornfully, the dog would 
 be the most religious of creatures. The animal, we 
 are told, feels, but it is the characteristic of man to 
 think. True, but man also feels, and he does not 
 feel as the animal feels. It is safe to say that if 
 man were a purely thinking being, he would not be 
 the religious being that experience shows him to 
 be. Occupying the standpoint of an all-embracing 
 idealism, Hegel gives no adequate psychological 
 analysis of the religious consciousness. He does not 
 treat of faith in its specific character ; and though 
 he indicates the dialectic movement by which feeling 
 passes into representation, he fails to recognise how 
 essential the interplay of sentiment, emotion, and 
 idea is in the maturest spiritual experience. 
 
 It would be unfair to criticise Hegel severely for 
 his treatment of the historic religions : his materials 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 7 
 
 were necessarily scanty. Suffice it to note that the 
 way in which he labels the particular religions is 
 often fanciful ; as every religion implies a complex 
 process of development, no single term can fairly 
 describe its character. The logical nexus which he 
 discovers between the different religions is largely 
 imaginary. So, profound and suggestive though it 
 was, the weaker elements in Hegel's interpretation 
 of religion were bound ere long to be recognised. 
 Especially was this the case when the Hegelian 
 School in Germany broke up, and its general 
 method and principles were weighed in the critical 
 balance and found wanting. 
 
 But there were interesting survivals of what we 
 may term the gnostic attitude in the Philosophy of 
 Keligion. Such a survival is the ' Christliche 
 Dogmatik' of the Zurich theologian, A. E. Bieder- 
 mann. 1 Yet already a change of method is seen 
 here. Biedermann does not seek to construe 
 religion by applying to it the ready key of the 
 dialectic process. He tries rather to rise to the 
 speculative import of religion by analysing the 
 historic phenomenon. He accepts from Hegel the 
 principle that the Philosophy of Religion must 
 
 1 The 1st edition of this work was published in 1869, and a 2nd 
 edition, with a new epistemological introduction, in 1884. Under 
 the same general category would fall, I believe, Lasson's 'Ueber 
 Gegenstand und Behandlung der Eeligionsphilosophie.' But I have 
 not examined the book. 
 
8 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 exhibit the notion of what is historically given in 
 the form of representation, or figurative thought. 
 The historic matter to which he turns is the dog- 
 matic system of the Christian Church. And his 
 aim is to show how the difficulties and contradic- 
 tions which exist within it lead up to, and find their 
 solution in, the concluding and speculative part of 
 his book. 
 
 A method like this is less likely to do violence to 
 the facts. At the same time Biedermann's con- 
 fidence in his ability to convey the whole truth in 
 philosophic terminology is curious. When we read 
 that the Absolute Being is "reines Insich und 
 Durchsichselbst-sein und in sich Grundsein alles 
 Seins ausser Sich," the doubt will suggest itself how 
 far this formidable phraseology really takes us. The 
 unsympathetic will recall the scoff of Goethe's 
 Mephistopheles, 
 
 " An Worte lasst sich trefflich glauben, 
 Von einem Wort lasst sich kein Iota rauben." 
 
 Yet despite the reproach of empty logomachy 
 levelled at it by theologians, Biedermann's work has 
 substantial merits. The modern student, however, 
 will doubt what the Swiss theologian did not 
 appear to doubt, that he had succeeded in present- 
 ing in a final form the philosophic meaning of 
 religion. 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 9 
 
 Another noteworthy example of the idealistic 
 standpoint is the Philosophy of Eeligion of the 
 late Principal Caird. 1 This well-known and sugges- 
 tive book states the Hegelian position with great 
 persuasiveness. Yet it is not exactly the Hegelian- 
 ism of the older time. The formal dialectic recedes 
 into the background, and it is recognised that the 
 emotions have a place in the religious consciousness. 
 But still it is thought which makes religion possible. 
 And Dr Caird believes that reason can criticise 
 religious experience, and resolve the contradictions 
 of ordinary belief in the speculative interpreta- 
 tion of religion. In that interpretation God is the 
 Absolute Self- consciousness to which all finite con- 
 sciousnesses are organically related. The work only 
 professes to be an introduction to the Philosophy of 
 Eeligion. Yet we are forced to ask ourselves if the 
 speculative view here unfolded could justify itself 
 by solving the time-worn problems which confront 
 the theologian. Is there proper room for such a 
 view of human personality as would make human 
 responsibility real and sin possible? If nature 
 has no reality apart from God, are its evils only 
 good in the making? For a human consciousness 
 which blends constantly and inevitably with the 
 divine, is there full scope for faith and reverence ? 
 Finally, in what sense is that Self ethical and 
 
 1 An Introduction to the Philosophy of Eeligion, 1880. 
 
i o Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 personal which is the unity of all thinkers and " all 
 objects of all thought" ? One cannot but doubt if, 
 within the general speculative view outlined in this 
 volume, room is to be found for a satisfactory treat- 
 ment of these problems. One also misses in this 
 book the explicit recognition of the truth, that the 
 religious idea of God involves ethical predicates 
 which are not the product of pure thinking. The 
 careful reader carries away the impression, after the 
 perusal of the book, that the author's genuine 
 spiritual feeling unconsciously led him to a more 
 positive and theistic view than his speculative 
 principles strictly warranted. 
 
 The ' Philosophy of Eeligion ' of Otto Pfleiderer is 
 a work of wide learning and penetrating insight 
 which is tempered by sound judgment. 1 While 
 sympathising with the idealism of an earlier day, 
 Pfleiderer modifies it at essential points and rejects 
 the claim to absolute knowledge. The central place 
 of reason and its rights are fully recognised, but 
 alongside of it are set the ideals of practical reason. 
 The theoretical and the practical reason must have 
 one source, but to grasp and formulate their unity is 
 not an achievement of thought but its goal. The 
 method by which Pfleiderer sets himself to work out 
 
 1 Keligionsphilosophie auf Geschichtlicher Grundlage. The 1st 
 edition was published in 1878, the 3rd edition, largely recast, 
 in 1896. 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 1 1 
 
 the problem of Religionsphilosopliie is, in his own 
 words, " the genetic-speculative method." That is 
 to say, the historic evolution of religious ideas is 
 traced, and through the study of their development 
 it is sought to determine their essence. History 
 criticises itself, and its larger logic corrects subjective 
 opinions and prejudices. This is, in fact, the Aris- 
 totelian method by which the essential nature of 
 an object is brought to light by tracing its evolu- 
 tion. 1 Pfleiderer works on these lines with much 
 success. The difficulty is that the wealth of historic 
 detail is apt to overburden the religious philosopher. 
 And where materials are so varied, and earlier and 
 later elements come down to us so intermingled, it 
 is hard to determine their relative importance and 
 the order of development. On the one hand, there 
 is the temptation to select the facts which suit a 
 preconceived theory. And on the other hand, the 
 very desire to do justice to all the facts may cause 
 the treatment to become purely historic. In which 
 case philosophic principles are brought in afterwards 
 to explain the historic process rather than shown 
 to issue from it. 
 
 The epistemological theory which Pfleiderer adopts 
 is transcendental realism. The conscious self builds 
 
 1 Cp., e.g., Politics, A. 1252, a. 24 : ei Srj TIS e d 
 <vd/u.va /3Aei^tv w<77rep ev rot? aAAois KOL Iv TOVTOIS, KaAAicrr av 
 
 OVTO) 
 
1 2 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 up the world of experience from the impressions of 
 sense. But the laws of our mind are not identical 
 with the laws of the objective world, nor is thought 
 the same as the being of things. The two spheres 
 correspond to one another, whence we infer that a 
 universal Keason co-ordinates the world of being 
 and the world of thought. This, we are told, is 
 the true form of the metaphysical proof of God's 
 existence. But the argument from the moral order 
 must supplement this proof and give ethical con- 
 tent to the idea of the Absolute Being. Pfleiderer 
 thus holds a midway position between the view that 
 asserts the perfect cognisibility of God and the view 
 that denies all theoretical knowledge of Him. We 
 know God both speculatively and practically, but 
 our knowledge though real is limited. The whole 
 inner side of the divine life is beyond our grasp. 
 And when we try to express the idea of a Being 
 who is beyond space and time, our thought must 
 perforce be figurative. 
 
 To our mind this is a sound and satisfactory 
 standpoint. At the same time we think that ob- 
 jections can be urged against the special form of 
 transcendental realism which Pfleiderer accepts as 
 an epistemological theory, though this is not the 
 place to urge them. 1 
 
 In discussing the later tendency in the Philosophy 
 
 1 Vid. Essay v., where the point is discussed. 
 
&f Religious Philosophy. 13 
 
 of .Religion we must not omit the name of Lotze 
 from our survey. No doubt Lotze's direct contri- 
 bution to the subject is not extensive, and is con- 
 tained in a small volume of ' Outlines ' compiled 
 after his death from class lectures. 1 In the ' Micro- 
 cosmus,' however, he had handled in some detail 
 the questions of the personality of God and the 
 nature of religion. And more important still, his 
 philosophical principles have greatly influenced many 
 who have worked in the department of religious 
 philosophy and speculative theology. 
 
 From first to last Lotze was the strenuous foe 
 of the Hegelian attempt to explain the universe as 
 the work of thought. He constantly recurs to the 
 contrast between the concrete world in which man 
 acts and feels and the spectral region of thought 
 formulae. Thought, he tells us, interprets but does 
 not make reality, and in its movement it always 
 depends on something which is not itself. Thought 
 is general, but the core of reality lies in the indi- 
 vidual self-feeling. The real is that which has 
 being for itself. Hence Lotze, following in the 
 track of Leibniz, builds up a view of things from a 
 pluralism as a starting-point. His monads, however, 
 unlike those of his great predecessor, act and react 
 on one another, and by their action and passion 
 make possible the orderly system of things. Here 
 
 1 Grundziige der Keligionsphilosophie, 1884. 
 
14 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 we can only note the highly important and sig- 
 nificant step by which Lotze, in order to explain 
 how interaction is possible, converts his pluralism 
 into a monism. Individuals act and react on one 
 another, for in the last resort they all fall within 
 the one real Being. 
 
 It must be confessed that this Absolute Being, 
 the M. of the ' Metaphysics/ seems a somewhat 
 unpromising object for a Philosophy of Keligion to 
 deal with. One cannot help thinking of the Sub- 
 stance of Spinoza. But a remarkable change seems 
 to come over Lotze's thought when he goes on to 
 consider his Absolute from the ethical and religious 
 point of view. The Supreme Being is personal, or 
 rather, more than personal in the human sense, for 
 man is only an imperfect personality. The inner 
 distinction of the Absolute from its own states 
 makes possible, we are told, its personality. The 
 justification for attributing ethical and spiritual 
 content to the idea of God, Lotze finds in the 
 value- judgments of the human subject. Man claims 
 that the Being who is the ground of all things 
 must respond to the demands of his spiritual life, 
 and what ought to be must be that which truly is. 
 
 The stress which Lotze laid on the value-judg- 
 ment has had a marked influence on subsequent 
 religious thought. No doubt the idea in its first 
 form goes back to Kant, who spoke of the ends 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 15 
 
 given by the practical reason, and of the moral 
 imperative laid upon the subject to act as a member 
 of a kingdom of ends. Here under another name 
 we have the thought of a system of values, which 
 has its source in the demands of the inner life of 
 men. Lotze, however, brought the conception into 
 vital relation with the emotional and spiritual ex- 
 perience of the individual, and asserted for it a 
 validity independent of intellectual processes. Hence 
 he claims the right to speak of the Infinite Being 
 as Love, and to regard the mechanism of nature 
 and the course of history as the unfolding of a 
 loving purpose. We are now listening to the 
 language of theism. But whether Lotze's ethical 
 construction of the Absolute coheres with the meta- 
 physical basis on which it rests may well be 
 doubted. 
 
 Beyond question the thought of Lotze has very 
 materially influenced the subsequent development 
 of the Philosophy of Eeligion. Lotze's continued 
 reiteration of the view that the formal activity of 
 thought could not give the content of reality, and 
 that the categories of logic could neither do justice 
 to the processes of nature nor to the movements 
 of history, gave strength and definiteness to the 
 reaction against the Hegelian system. His insist- 
 ance on the uniqueness of individuality tended in 
 the same direction, and imparted vitality to the 
 
1 6 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 movement towards pluralism. And lastly, in set- 
 ting the claims of the value-judgment in a new and 
 fuller light, he made clear the right of spiritual 
 consciousness to have a voice in the final interpre- 
 tation of reality. No one who is acquainted with 
 recent developments in philosophy and theology 
 will deny the great influence of this side of Lotze's 
 work. The reader will no doubt be able to trace it 
 in the works we have still to mention. 
 
 A very able treatise on the Philosophy of Eeligion, 
 which, while showing traces of Lotze's influence, is 
 in many ways an independent treatment of the 
 subject, is the work of Professor Siebeck. 1 Like 
 Lotze and Pfleiderer, he does not admit the claim 
 of speculative thought to know God fully. But 
 while Siebeck differs from Pfleiderer in the view 
 he takes of the essence of religion, and the charac- 
 teristic features of its development, he is at one 
 with him in holding that we have some speculative 
 knowledge of the Absolute World-Ground. Yet he 
 lays less stress on the value of theoretical cognition. 
 It is a means and not an end, and has its place as 
 an element in the personal movement of the ethical 
 and religious life. That life, expressing itself in 
 value - judgments, postulates for its ground and 
 explanation a Supreme Value. The theoretical 
 conception of a Highest Being finds its continua- 
 
 1 Lehrbuch der Keligionsphilosophie, 1893. 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 17 
 
 tion and conclusion in the practical belief in a 
 Eeality which is the Highest Good. Siebeck does 
 not think it necessarily invalid to conceive God 
 ex analogia hominis. But he holds strongly that 
 pure thought cannot give us the idea of God, who is 
 the object of spiritual faith, and the source and end 
 of personal religion. Metaphysics, he contends, is 
 monistic ; religion is individual ; and a theoretical 
 solution of this difference is not possible. 
 
 It cannot be doubted that the movement hostile 
 to a theoretical philosophy of religion has been 
 powerfully helped by the theological system of 
 Eitschl, and by the work of his numerous followers. 
 Eitschl at one period was disposed to admit that 
 it was the function of philosophy to try to compre- 
 hend the world as a whole, and so religion as an 
 element in it. But he finally abandoned this view, 
 and excluded theoretical philosophy entirely from 
 the domain of religion. 1 Taking stand with Kant, 
 Eitschl maintains the strict limitation of the theo- 
 retical faculty, and insists that the idea of God is 
 not an object of speculative cognition at all. The 
 religious consciousness moves altogether in the 
 sphere of value -judgments. God ceases to be a 
 valid conception for the reason which is common 
 
 1 Vid. Pfleiderer, 'Development of Theology,' p. 184. Kitschl's 
 theological system is unfolded in the 3rd vol. of his * Christliche Lehre 
 der Kechtfertigung und Versohnung.' 
 
 B 
 
1 8 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 to all men, but is posited as the answer to inner 
 needs and desires. Hence the Kitschlian system 
 is a sort of theological positivism which seeks to 
 rest on, and to elaborate itself out of, historical 
 experience. The Christian view of God, and the 
 corresponding view of the world, are neither justi- 
 fied nor refuted by reason. Their only verification 
 is the way in which they have satisfied and still 
 satisfy the needs of the inner life. 
 
 In a similar spirit one of Ritschl's best known 
 followers, Kaftan, expresses himself in a lecture on 
 ' Christianity and Philosophy/ * There is no way, 
 he tells us, leading from natural science and psy- 
 chology to philosophy ; nor is the last the central 
 science, as Aristotle conceived it. Philosophy only 
 exists in the true sense as the practical reason of 
 Kant, i.e., as the doctrine of the highest good ; and 
 here only do we have the key to the meaning of 
 reality. In other words, the idea of God is posited 
 by the moral and spiritual life, and receives no 
 justification whatever from pure reason. The func- i 
 tion of thought is subordinate ; it is the servant of( 
 the ethical will from which it derives its value. 
 
 The School of Bitschl is thus thoroughly opposed 
 to any application of speculative philosophy to the 
 interpretation of religion. It treats theology as a 
 purely historical science, and justifies its principles 
 
 1 Das Christenthum und die Philosophic, 1895. 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 19 
 
 by the way in which it is claimed that they enter 
 into the spiritual experience of Christians. Yet one 
 may well doubt if the Eitschlian notion of religion 
 has been developed without any aid from theoretical 
 reflexion on the nature of God and man. The norm 
 by which we appreciate and select our historical 
 materials can hardly be a merely empirical one. 
 Eitschl's speculative agnosticism has found a wide 
 following in Germany, and it is not unintelligible as 
 a reaction against the earlier gnosticism. But the 
 foundations of the system are so unstable that one 
 cannot believe the superstructure will permanently 
 withstand the tide of criticism. 
 
 The other works which I shall mention all be- 
 longing to the last twenty years are not written 
 by Germans ; but they bear out the opinion I stated 
 at the outset, that the newer attitude in Religions- 
 philosophic is distinctly critical and sceptical. I refer 
 first to the acute and powerful book of a distin- 
 guished Dutch scholar, the late Prof. Kauwenhoff. 1 
 
 The Philosophy of Eeligion, he holds, is not to 
 be treated as a mere aspect of general philosophy. 
 It has its own sphere and matter. It has to give 
 a psychological account of the origin and develop- 
 ment of religion, and then goes on to investigate 
 its essence and justification. And the relation into 
 
 1 Philosophy of Eeligion. The original Dutch edition appeared 
 in 1887. There is a German translation by Hanne. 
 
2O Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 which it enters with general philosophy will depend 
 on the results at which it arrives in treating these 
 subjects. 
 
 The foundation of religion, according to Eauwen- 
 hoff, lies in the unconditioned consciousness of duty. 
 The ethical consciousness itself postulates religious 
 faith. But the essence of religious faith is just 
 faith in a moral order. Unlike Kant, Kauwenhoff 
 does not find that the moral consciousness postulates 
 the idea of God or immortality. Kant, he urges, 
 was really bringing in the theoretical judgment in 
 an illegitimate way when he sought to make the 
 conception of God a postulate of the practical 
 reason. All that the ethical consciousness pos- 
 tulates is the existence of a moral order of things. 
 The necessary implicate of this faith is, that the 
 world is so constituted that the moral law can rule 
 therein. Kant, it will be remembered, refused to 
 admit that the notion of end or final cause had 
 objective validity in nature. Eauwenhoff, however, 
 finds that nature not only allows of but positively 
 favours the idea that a principle of teleological con- 
 nexion obtains within it. 
 
 The question naturally presses itself on us, What 
 place in religion does Eauwenhoff assign to the idea 
 of God, and what reality does he concede to it ? If 
 faith in an ethical order is the essence of religion, is 
 that order only another name for God, as Fichte, for 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 21 
 
 example, at one time held ? It was to be expected 
 that one deeply imbued with the Kantian spirit like 
 this writer should find the proofs for the being of 
 God, both in the older and revised form, untenable. 
 A scientific proof of the divine existence is im- 
 possible, and the ethical consciousness fails to give 
 us the assurance that an objective reality corresponds 
 to our notion of deity. The idea of God which 
 faith gives us is the product of poetic imagination. 
 And if we seek a counterpart of it in the real world, 
 we get only a bare scientific notion. Faith creates 
 for us a picture of the divine ; and, although theo- 
 retical proof is impossible, we can at least apply to 
 it the negative test that it must not be obviously 
 false when translated into a scientific conception. 
 Yet it seems we have ground for believing that we 
 have truth under this poetic form, truth at all events 
 so far as our stage of development enables us to 
 grasp it, truth clad in a partially transparent garb. 
 And we accept faith's object as containing truth, 
 because otherwise the realities around us are un- 
 intelligible. But EauwenhofF denies our right to 
 construct an idea of God ex analogia hominis : 
 attributes of the finite are not to be transferred to 
 the infinite. On the other hand, he maintains that 
 religious imagination has a claim upon belief when 
 its object corresponds to the need of the inner life 
 and aids the realisation of our spiritual capacity. 
 
22 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 That truth underlies the symbolism of religious 
 faith we have practical assurance. At most thought 
 can only furnish religion with a Weltanschauung to 
 which faith can link itself, and in which its ideals 
 can be realised. 
 
 Rauwenhoff's book is valuable for its keen and 
 searching analysis and its criticism of religious 
 conceptions. His critical knife, wielded with a 
 fearless hand, leaves nothing untouched. The 
 reader who accepts his arguments will come to 
 the conclusion that religion offers us an intoler- 
 able deal of assumptions with a poor pittance of 
 assured fact. Still Kauwenhoff cannot fairly be 
 accused of reducing the object of religion to a 
 purely subjective creation after the manner of 
 Feuerbach. At the same time I do not see that, 
 from his point of view, any convincing reply can 
 be given to those who ask a reason for the faith that 
 is in us. If reason is impotent to lead us towards a 
 God, why should not faith give us mere mythology ? 
 Where much is confessedly pure poetry, why may 
 not all be imagination ? To satisfy a need is in 
 itself no sufficient guarantee of truth, though the 
 fact may go to support and confirm conclusions to 
 which we are led on other grounds. 
 
 A work less subtle and thorough than the fore- 
 going, though interesting and eloquent in its way, 
 is the Philosophy of Religion of the French theo- 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 23 
 
 logian Auguste Sabatier. 1 The larger portion of 
 the book is occupied with the psychology of reli- 
 gion and a critical discussion of Christian faith and 
 Christian doctrines ; it does not concern us here. 
 In the third part of the volume, however, there 
 is a chapter entitled " A Critical Theory of Religious 
 Knowledge," to which we may refer. 
 
 Sabatier adopts the theory that the God-con- 
 sciousness is the solution of the conflict between 
 the ego and the world, and between the pure and 
 practical reason. Without at present impugning 
 the correctness of this view as a psychological 
 explanation, we ask, "What is supposed to be 
 the character and validity of the knowledge of 
 God attained in this way ? " The act, says Sabatier^ 
 by which the human spirit posits God is an act 
 of faith, not of reason, the spiritual counterpart 
 of the instinct of self-preservation in the natural 
 world. Yet we are told that the practical solution 
 implies the possibility and the hope of a theoretical 
 solution. For the pure and the practical reason 
 are united in the subject which knows and acts. 2 
 
 1 Esquisse d'une Philosophie de la Religion, 3rd edition, 1897. 
 Sabatier's book has been the occasion of a good deal of criticism and 
 controversy among French Protestant theologians: vid. t e.g., 'La 
 Connaissance Religieuse,' by H. Bois, of Montauban, and ' Le Danger 
 Moral de 1'Evolutionisme Religieux, 3 by G. Frommel. 
 
 2 Compare with this R. A. Lipsius, ' Glauben und Wissen,' p. 54 ff. 
 But I cannot see that Sabatier's position, as it is further denned, 
 really admits of such a hope. 
 
24 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 And further, in asserting the sovereignty of spirit 
 in ourselves and in the world, we affirm that we 
 and the world have in spirit the principle and end 
 of our being. There is here apparently an ontolog- 
 ical inference from a psychological experience which 
 at least needs explanation and defence. For the 
 movement of soul which finds in God a solution of its 
 felt inner contradiction does not in itself guarantee 
 the objective supremacy of spirit in nature and life. 
 
 Does Sabatier, then, hold that our knowledge of 
 God which is subjectively realised is at the same 
 time objectively valid? In common with recent 
 theologians he distinguishes sharply the existential- 
 judgment from the value-judgment, which are as 
 the foci of an ellipse in relation yet always apart. 
 The former deals with the external facts of nature 
 and their relations, and excludes any reference to 
 the sentiment or will of the subject. In the latter 
 the reference to the will and feeling of the subject 
 is central and essential ; and to this order belongs 
 our religious knowledge. We do not apprehend 
 God as a being without us, nor do we grasp Him 
 by logical thought : we experience Him in the 
 heart. Eeligious knowledge and knowledge of 
 nature are, therefore, two separate orders not to 
 be deduced from each other; the passage from the 
 one to the other is a ^era^acns eis aXXo yeVos. 
 Spiritual truths are apprehended by a subjective 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 25 
 
 act, an act of the " heart," to use Pascal's word. 
 Headers of the ' Pensees ' will remember the sentence, 
 "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait 
 pas." These interior reasons, we learn from Sabatier, 
 are as sure in their way as the truths of science. 
 An objective demonstration of God, were it pos- 
 sible, would be futile. To the man without piety 
 it would be useless, to the man who is pious it 
 would be superfluous. It is a curious symptom 
 of the philosophic temper of the age that this 
 clear-cut division of knowledge into two diverse 
 kinds should seem satisfactory to many. I cannot 
 see how the fact that both orders fall within the 
 consciousness of the subject can be a guarantee 
 for their solidarity and correspondence, unless we 
 further grant that the idea of God as unitary 
 ground of both series has theoretical validity. 
 Moreover the heart is semper varium et mutabile; 
 and if the verities of religion are apprehended only 
 by inner spiritual experience, universality and 
 consistency of belief appear to be impossible. 
 
 The Danish philosopher Hoffding, whose intel- 
 lectual affinity is more with Spinoza than with 
 Kant, has lately given us a striking, and in some 
 respects independent, treatment of the Philosophy 
 of Eeligion. 1 The book offers abundant material 
 
 1 Religionsphilosophie, 1901. German translation with the co- 
 operation of the author, by F. Bendixen. 
 
26 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 for discussion, but I must confine myself to one 
 or two salient points which bear on the subject 
 in hand. 
 
 The task which Hoffding sets to himself is to 
 determine the place and significance of religion in 
 life. A Philosophy of Keligion instead of solving 
 problems rather shows how these arise, and ex- 
 plains their meaning and bearing. He begins 
 with an epistemological discussion which yields 
 the conclusion that religion can lay no claim to 
 explain the world where science fails. And as the 
 result of an interesting argument, Hoffding finds 
 that theoretical thought gives no objective validity 
 to the idea of God. What is given in experience 
 is totality; multiplicity and unity are abstractions, 
 and the one is not to be deduced from the other. 
 Materialism is indeed a fallacy, but idealism lacks 
 cogent proof. It is even possible that reality may 
 have other aspects than those we term psychical 
 and material, for the division is purely empirical. 1 
 We must, no doubt, presuppose some kind of 
 ultimate unity as the ground of the interaction 
 and interdependence of things, but this is the goal 
 to which knowledge cannot rise. Hoffding thinks 
 his standpoint might be termed " critical monism." 
 He denies our right to apply analogically concepts 
 
 1 This of course suggests Spinoza. But how much is a possibility, 
 which has no positive point of contact with reality, worth ? 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 27 
 
 valid within experience to the ultimate ground of 
 all experience. Notions like ' personality ' and 
 ' activity ' are quite inapplicable to God, who can 
 mean no more for logical thought than the prin- 
 ciple of explanation. Even more thoroughly than 
 Kauwenhoff, Hoffding reduces the dogmas of 
 religion to mere poetry and symbolism. 
 
 It might seem, then, that religion had no title to 
 exist at all. That depends, however, on what we 
 mean by religion, and Hoffding means something 
 curiously vague and abstract. In his c Outlines of 
 Psychology' he defined religion as " cosmic life-feel- 
 ing," and here we learn that it signifies a " Faith in 
 the maintenance of Value" (Erhaltung des Wertes), 
 the conviction that value persists in the world. 
 
 Like many others Hoffding thinks the religious 
 consciousness expresses itself in value -judgments ; 
 but in place of the ethical order which Kauwenhoff 
 found to be its presupposition, he finds a general 
 principle implied. And this principle is, as we have 
 said, that the good (value) persists, and maintains 
 itself, through all the changing forms it assumes 
 in the world -development. 1 As parallels to the 
 spiritual principle we have the conservation of 
 energy in nature, and the principle of continuity or 
 causal connexion in science. All three, inasmuch as 
 
 1 With this we may compare M. Arnold's faith in " a stream of 
 tendency which makes for righteousness." 
 
28 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 they carry in them an inference as to the future 
 from the basis of a present and past experience 
 which is incomplete, involve faith. 
 
 So far as I can see, the Philosophy of Eeligion 
 in Hoffding's hands casts no light on the deeper 
 meaning of religion, nor discloses any satisfactory 
 ground for its emergence on the stage of human 
 history. The developed religions, on this view, 
 contain a great mass of spurious accretions. The 
 latter are the work of thought, whose proper 
 function in religion is very subordinate ; but it has 
 managed to import into religion many unwarrant- 
 able assumptions. It has, for example, illegitimately 
 personified the notion of a highest value. We must 
 discard, however, this illegitimate extra -belief, for 
 the essence of religious faith is no more than faith 
 in an abstract principle of value. Hoffding thinks 
 the principle can be shown to be implicit in all the 
 historical forms of religion. Even if it were so, it 
 does not follow that a colourless common residuum 
 is the constitutive idea. And I cannot comprehend 
 how "faith in the persistence of value" is an 
 adequate psychological motive for the historic 
 development of the religious consciousness. But 
 even if we accept HofFding's view of the essence of 
 religion, its validity on his theory remains un- 
 certain. For we cannot pass simply from ap- 
 preciation of value, which is subjective, to the 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 29 
 
 persistence of value as an objective principle in 
 the universe. 
 
 In his epistemology Hoffding leaves the gulf 
 unbridged between the value-series in the mind and 
 the real or causal series in the objective world. And 
 to do him justice, he admits " conservation of value " 
 is, strictly considered, a principle held by faith, which 
 cannot be proved by reason to be immanent in the 
 world-process. Faith, however, claims its object to 
 be real : it does not say, " I must act as if this were 
 true," but " This is true." And though the outlook 
 of JReligionsphilosophie be restricted in these days, 
 it ought at least to say something to justify or con- 
 demn the claims of faith. But Prof. Hoffding gives 
 us no positive ground of confidence in his principle. 
 He only goes the length of trying to remove certain 
 objections which may be urged against it. He 
 adduces arguments to show why the apparent loss 
 or extinction of value in the world-process need not 
 be so in fact. Yet when all is said, the principle 
 hangs in the air without proper support. It cannot 
 be argued that the persistence of value is a postulate 
 of the existence of value ; and the purely empirical 
 warrant for the belief is by no means convincing. 
 We may fine down the essence of religion to a thin 
 abstraction, but so long as it implies that we 
 postulate ethical law as realised, and maintaining 
 itself in the objective world, we must seek some 
 
30 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 guarantee for this in the character of the ultimate 
 Keality. And the vague " critical monism" of 
 Hoffding gives no real basis to the conservation of 
 value as an immanent law of the universe. 
 
 I shall conclude this survey by a short reference 
 to the philosophical point of view indicated by 
 Prof. James in his extremely interesting lectures on 
 ' Varieties of Eeligious Experience/ 
 
 "We have spoken of a philosophical point of view 
 for convenience' sake, but Prof. James is a foe to 
 metaphysics in the old sense. In Plato's days he 
 would have been ranked among the /uo-oXdyoi or 
 "haters of ideas." Eeaders of his book will re- 
 member that religious experiences somehow well up 
 into the conscious region from the sub -conscious 
 self. Distinguishing the existential from the value- 
 judgment, he properly remarks that the description 
 of their genesis does not involve a pronouncement 
 on the real meaning and worth of these experiences. 
 Has Prof. James, then, any theory of the philosophic 
 meaning of the psychological process ? He will not 
 call his view a theory, it is only an hypothesis ; and 
 " who says hypothesis renounces the ambition to be 
 coercive in his arguments ? " In religious experience 
 we feel ourselves to be connected with a " something 
 more," we feel the "conscious person to be con- 
 tinuous with a wider self through which saving 
 experiences come." But James declares explicitly, 
 

 of Religious Philosophy. 31 
 
 " What the more characteristically divine facts are 
 apart from the actual inflow of energy in the faith- 
 state and the prayer-state I know not." The intel- 
 lectual constructions by which we seek to explain 
 our religious experiences are worthless. They are 
 " over-beliefs," unconvincing structures reared by 
 thought on the basis supplied by feeling. Philos- 
 ophy lives in words and fails to be objectively con- 
 vincing. " The recesses of feeling are the only places 
 in the world in which we can catch real fact in the 
 making." So apparently Faust was right, GefiM 
 ist Alles. Naturally God, as commonly conceived, 
 falls to be reckoned as an ' over-belief/ The prac- 
 tical needs of religion are satisfied by faith in a 
 larger power friendly to us : indeed " anything 
 larger will do, if it is large enough to trust for the 
 next step." In fact, the universe " may be a collec- 
 tion of larger selves " without any true unity in it. 
 On such high matters there is no certainty, but 
 " human nature is willing to live on a chance," II 
 faut parier. And Prof. James is willing to make 
 his 'personal venture 7 on the 'over -belief that 
 there is something divine in the universe after all. 
 
 If we are to believe this trenchant writer, theology 
 and philosophy of religion are deeply discredited. 
 Feeling is mistress of the house, and reason is the 
 obedient drudge, " it finds arguments for our con- 
 victions, for, indeed, it has to find them." The 
 
32 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 ' philosophic climate ' in which Mr James lives is 
 radically different from that in which the men 
 flourished who trusted thought to read the riddle 
 of things. But I shall not attempt to criticise 
 the writer's position in detail. In these lectures 
 he only indicates his philosophic standpoint in out- 
 line, reserving its fuller development for another 
 occasion. But we are told enough to infer that 
 the claim of any religion to be a ( reasonable ser- 
 vice 7 is quite unsubstantiated. "We hardly ex- 
 aggerate James's point of view when we say that 
 spiritual experience is an eruption from beneath, 
 which inundates the conscious region, an experi- 
 ence whose ultimate origin and meaning we may 
 speculate about, if we please, with the certainty 
 that no certainty is possible on the subject. Prof. 
 James's hostility to speculative construction is firmly 
 rooted in his first principles. Fundamental fact is 
 given only by feeling; belief is a matter of will 
 rather than of intellect. In conceptual thinking 
 we dwell in a shadowy realm of abstractions, the 
 dim reflection of the world of living realities. The 
 inherent weakness of thought makes a Philosophy 
 of Eeligion, save in the most restricted sense, a 
 fruitless task. We have reached a point of view 
 the polar opposite of that with which we began. 
 
 Here, then, we close our short survey. It lays 
 no claim to be complete, but seeks merely to in- 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 33 
 
 dicate in a general way the growth of a tendency. 
 We have taken Hegel's work as representing the 
 high-water mark of confidence in the speculative 
 method and in its power of solving the problems 
 of religion. And it appeared both interesting and 
 instructive to point out the difference of spirit 
 and aim with which religious philosophy has been 
 pursued during the past generation. It would not 
 be true to say that the anti-speculative tendency 
 is the exclusive tendency, but it is, on the whole, 
 the prevailing tendency. On the other hand, 
 thinkers like Dr E. Caird and Prof. Eoyce have 
 made important contributions to the subject in 
 quite recent times, and they have a real faith in 
 the capacity of reason to deal effectively with the 
 highest problems. Works like these at least serve 
 to show that idealism in one form or another is 
 still a force in England and America, and that 
 Pragmatism, as represented by Prof. James, will 
 not win its way without dispute. But the per- 
 sistence of an older tendency is compatible with 
 the growth of a new and different tendency, and 
 the evidence for the latter is convincing. The 
 general direction of the current is fairly clear. 
 We begin with the Hegelian reaction against the 
 exaltation of feeling in religion by the Eomantic 
 School and its endeavour to explain religion through 
 the dialectic of thought. The absolute claim of 
 
34 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 reason gradually broke down, and the need of an 
 unbiassed study of historic facts asserted itself. 
 The philosophic standpoint moved back towards 
 Kant, and the importance of feeling was again 
 recognised in the stress which Lotze and many 
 after him laid on the value-judgment. Some of 
 the best work in the Philosophy of Eeligion has 
 been done by those who have treated the pure and 
 the practical reason, the intellectual and the value- 
 judgment, as complementary and mutually support- 
 ing, and so have endeavoured to rise to a view of 
 God which satisfies the whole man. The recogni- 
 tion of feeling and will as well as reason was 
 amply justified, and is indispensable to the proper 
 treatment of religious phenomena. 
 
 But the further development of tendency was 
 to reduce thought to an entirely subordinate place, 
 and to regard the other elements alone as the 
 essentials of the religious consciousness. In har- 
 mony with this the problem of the Philosophy of 
 Religion comes to be viewed as a much narrower 
 one. Thought is sent on no adventurous task of 
 scaling the heavens, but is put to the humbler 
 work of ordering the house on earth. Little is 
 said of the ontological questions raised by religion, 
 and that little is mainly negative. We are rather 
 invited to consider the rise and growth of religion 
 as an element in human culture, to determine its 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 35 
 
 relation to other elements, to understand its func- 
 tion and to appreciate its value in life. One has 
 no desire to ignore the worth of work of this 
 kind, and the Psychology of Keligion has profited 
 much in recent years by the concentration of atten- 
 tion on the subjective aspects of religion. At the 
 same time, there is a danger in turning away from 
 the larger problem of religious philosophy. Man 
 is not merely interested in knowing how religion 
 works in life, he desires also to know how far the 
 claim which religion makes of setting before us a 
 true view of the world can be justified. If he is 
 asked to look on theological creeds as no more 
 than poetry and symbol, he will press the question, 
 " What, then, is true ? " And justly so ; for the 
 effective negation is only made from a positive 
 standpoint. When the philosopher criticises and 
 finds contradictions in the current religious con- 
 ceptions, he must try to vindicate his criticisms 
 by revealing some higher and more harmonious 
 point of view. To what end? cries the sceptic; 
 the new view will turn out inadequate, like all 
 those which have gone before. There is no doubt 
 of this. Pure truth, as Lessing said, is for God 
 alone ; but to man belongs the right and the duty 
 to search for truth. It will be enough if the later 
 synthesis represent a further stage of progress, a 
 more advanced point at which the pilgrim spirit 
 
36 Hegel and the later Tendency 
 
 of humanity pauses, and surveys in the light of 
 reason the wide fields of experience, ere it again 
 resumes its onward journey towards the kingdom 
 of all truth. Agnosticism is intelligible as a re- 
 action, but it can never be an abiding attitude of 
 the human mind. 
 
 Accordingly, while we are clear that the claims 
 of Hegelianism were extravagant, we are just as 
 clear that the position say of Prof. James is 
 equally extravagant. Granted that a purely rational 
 nature would not be religious, it is no less true 
 that a purely feeling and willing nature would not 
 be religious either. Thought is not a subordinate 
 but an essential element in the religious conscious- 
 ness, for feeling and will are useless without the 
 presence of ideas. We cannot discredit reason 
 without likewise casting discredit on religion. The 
 self-conscious spirit demands to be in harmony with 
 itself, and this it cannot be if reason is excluded 
 from its deepest experiences. 
 
 It is usual for those who take the opposite view 
 to urge that in practice thought has very little to 
 do with the making or unmaking of religion. 
 Apollo and Minerva, as Comte said, were never 
 refuted : they vanished away because they no longer 
 answered a spiritual need. Logic does not create 
 faith, and faith often resists the assaults of logic. 
 There is an element of truth here. No one will 
 
of Religious Philosophy. 37 
 
 say that purely intellectual forces built up any 
 religion ; and we know that the conservative in- 
 fluence of feeling and sentiment can keep doctrines 
 alive long after they have been disowned by reason. 
 Yet even here the credulous devotee does not sup- 
 pose his belief to be irrational, although he is not 
 able to show that it is reasonable. The "credo, 
 quia absurdum est " of Tertullian, the apotheosis of 
 purely emotional certainty, is, in its extravagance, 
 an impracticable attitude for normal human nature. 
 The developed religions claim to be consistent with 
 reason, and the growth of doctrine attests the need 
 that religion should appeal to the mind as well as 
 satisfy the heart. Indeed the secondary function 
 of thought in religion is apparent rather than real. 
 Keligious experience inevitably clothes itself in 
 forms of thought, and acquires meaning and general 
 value only as it does so. And the intellectual out- 
 look reacts on the religious feelings, and gives a 
 tone to them. The subtle change of spiritual 
 climate by which people explain the decadence of 
 a faith once vigorous is due in part at least to 
 intellectual causes. Greek philosophy had much to 
 do in producing the religious atmosphere in which 
 Apollo and Minerva withered away. And the 
 Christian consciousness to-day reflects in an un- 
 mistakable way the influence of modern science. 
 On the other hand, it must be fully granted that 
 
38 Later Tendency of Religious Philosophy. 
 
 pure thought can never give us the God whom the 
 religious consciousness demands. Hence those are 
 right who urge that value- judgments are essential 
 in religion. For only through the value realised 
 in experience can we give positive spiritual content 
 to the idea of Him who is the living Source and 
 the abiding Ground of all truth and goodness. 
 The error which the religious philosopher must 
 guard against is one-sidedness. Religion is a rich 
 and complex growth, and he must endeavour to do 
 justice to all its elements. 
 
ESSAY II. 
 
 THE NATURAL SCIENCES, ETHICS, 
 AND RELIGION 
 
"ME 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 *LfF 
 
 ESSAY II. 
 
 DURING tlie first two or three decades of the latter 
 half of the nineteenth century much was heard of 
 the disagreement between Science and Keligion. 
 And even that general public which cares nothing 
 for the controversies of the schools was in this 
 -case interested in the issues of the dispute, for 
 views were being urged which, it was thought, 
 seriously menaced the integrity of the dominant 
 Faith. In a sense, however, it was only an old 
 war which had entered on a new phase. The 
 quarrel between Science and Eeligion goes at least 
 as far back as the days of Anaxagoras, who was 
 accused of impiety because he ventured to say 
 that the glorious Sun -God was only a red-hot 
 stone. Such incidents, however, were isolated and 
 occasional ; with the advent of the modern world 
 the protests of individuals took the larger and 
 more permanent form of antagonism between two 
 discordant points of view. 
 
42 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 In the sixteenth century Natural Science, which 
 had so far won its independence and had entered 
 on its marvellous career, came into sharp conflict 
 with the Church. Nor can we wonder that the 
 Church, whose way of thinking was based on the 
 Ptolemaic system, found the Copernican scheme of 
 the universe revolutionary and dangerous. But 
 the new Astronomy was not to be denied ; and if 
 Eeligion protested against it at the first, it was 
 forced to come to terms with it at the last. Nor 
 is it likely that the result will be different in the 
 case of the controversy which sprang up last 
 century. The geologic record is just as convinc- 
 ing on the vast age of the earth as astronomy is 
 on the boundless extension of the heavens. The 
 Church, as many now recognise, must adjust its 
 outlook to the larger scheme of things. We have 
 even fallen on a time when the more thoughtful 
 public is no longer interested in attempts to 
 reconcile Genesis and Geology. The Darwinian 
 theory of the Descent of Man is not, of course, 
 universally accepted yet, for the evidence is still 
 incomplete. But the old prejudice is broken down, 
 and the general readiness to regard it as a good 
 working hypothesis is a victory for Science. At 
 the close of the nineteenth century we find the 
 doctrine of a special series of creative acts has 
 fallen into the background, a doctrine religious 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 43 
 
 in its origin and long an article of religious belief. 
 In its stead the notion of evolution, or of con- 
 tinuous development, has won widespread accept- 
 ance as a sound principle of scientific method. 
 
 The dispassionate observer at present naturally 
 asks, What have been the gains and losses on 
 either side ? In what case have the so - called 
 victories of Science left Eeligion? It is histori- 
 cally evident that Copernicus dealt piety no deadly 
 blow, nor in these days does it seem hardly smitten 
 by the followers of Darwin. Those who thought 
 to do Eeligion grievous hurt have found their 
 sword pass through no earthly body, and they 
 have seen the foeman, like the legendary heroes 
 in the Norse Walhalla, still vigorous and ready 
 to renew the fight. The votaries of Religion, 
 proud of its power to survive assault, might say 
 to its opponents, 
 
 " You do it wrong, being so majestical, 
 To offer it the show of violence ; 
 For it is, as the air, invulnerable, 
 And your vain blows malicious mockery." 
 
 Are we to suppose, then, that Eeligion dwells in 
 some supersensuous region where, as Kant held, 
 Science can neither make nor mar? Not exactly 
 so. But we must insist that it is necessary to dis- 
 tinguish between the substance and the secondary 
 products, between the spiritual life and the theories 
 
44 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 and inferences which have grown up around it. 
 The former is of primary, the latter of lesser, 
 importance. Religion gives meaning and imparts 
 a purpose to life, and therefore it involves a general 
 view of the world. It bids man regard himself 
 and his surroundings, the world and historic 
 events, in the light of an all-embracing end. 
 But the reality of the object of religious faith, 
 and the value of the spiritual life, do not stand 
 or fall with a particular interpretation of the 
 connexion of phenomena in nature or the order 
 of their development in the cosmic whole. One 
 cannot see how the worth of Eeligion is impaired 
 by the nebular theory of the origin of the solar 
 system, or by the Darwinian account of the descent 
 of our race. Certain traditional views which have 
 been associated with Religion will have to be 
 corrected; Religion itself is not discredited. 
 
 Indeed, when we look into the matter closely, 
 we see that the quarrel of Science has been much 
 more with specific theological doctrines than with 
 Religion as a whole. In an earlier day theology 
 set forth what it thought was the religious ex- 
 planation of facts in nature. There was no ex- 
 isting body of scientific knowledge to control its 
 activity. At a later time, when Science set to 
 work in this field, it gradually discovered that 
 these facts came under the dominion of natural law 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics ', and Religion. 45 
 
 and causality. It therefore strenuously resisted 
 the theological dogma as an explanation, and 
 upheld the sufficiency of the mechanical inter- 
 pretation. Now the controversy is dying down ; 
 and those who have the interests of Keligion at 
 heart are recognising that they can frequently 
 accept the explanations of Science as valid in their 
 sphere without sacrificing the spiritual interests- 
 they hold sacred. 
 
 But a rapprochement like this has not always 
 been possible. For Science has sometimes not been 
 content to attack weak and exposed outposts of the 
 spiritual kingdom, but has hurled itself against the 
 citadel. And Eeligion has had to fight pro aris et 
 focis. I refer to the assaults of materialism which, 
 in the name of Science, sought to reduce life and 
 mind to matter and force. One can understand how 
 vigorous spirits, elated at the success of the mechan- 
 ical method of explanation, were bold to think that 
 the principle might be indefinitely extended in its 
 scope. Thus in his famous Belfast Address, we find 
 Prof. Tyndall speaking of the " intellectual neces- 
 sity " by which we discern in matter " the promise 
 and potency of all terrestrial life." Another well- 
 known writer has said, " As surely as every future 
 grows out of past and present, so will the physi- 
 ology of the future gradually extend the realm of 
 matter and law until it is coextensive with know- 
 
46 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 ledge, and feeling, and action." : So wrote Prof. 
 Huxley in 1868; and though he never repudiated 
 the words, it may be doubted whether he would 
 have chosen to speak so confidently twenty -five 
 years later. For the discussions of the last thirty 
 years have been quite unfavourable to the conten- 
 tion that mental and spiritual processes can ever be 
 explained by concepts like matter and force. The 
 " beggarly elements " of things must certainly be 
 very much better than they are supposed to be, if 
 they are to beget life and mind. Materialism really 
 assumes what it pretends to deduce. And while it 
 has attacked religion in the name of Science, in the 
 end it has itself been discredited. 
 
 But it is not only with Science that Religion has 
 had disputes. The domain of Ethics lies so near 
 to that of Religion that concord between them 
 would seem to be essential and in the best interests 
 of both. Yet though near relations they have occa- 
 sionally differed with one another. Historically this 
 has usually happened when the moral ideal has 
 advanced beyond the level represented in existing 
 religious thought and practice. Thus we see the 
 Greek dramatists purifying and elevating the old 
 stories about the Gods, which had the sanction of 
 the ancient faith, but were condemned by their 
 
 1 It ought to be said, however, that this does not necessarily mean 
 more than a thorough-going psycho-physical parallelism. 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 47 
 
 moral consciousness. In the person of Xenophanes 
 we find the philospher roundly denouncing the tradi- 
 tional way of representing the divine powers as im- 
 moral. Again, among the Hebrews the prophetic 
 movement of the eighth century B.C. reveals the 
 conflict of a deeper ethical consciousness with a 
 religion which had stiffened into a mechanical and 
 external cult. Indeed the uprising of the ethical 
 spirit in new strength has always been a powerful 
 source of religious reform and progress. Here, how- 
 ever, it is plain that the quarrel of Ethics is not 
 with Eeligion as such, but with its defective or un- 
 satisfactory form. The demand of the moral con- 
 sciousness is for a purification of the old faith ; it 
 has no thought of offering itself as the substitute 
 of Eeligion. 
 
 And we can understand why it has been so. For 
 Eeligion is older than Ethics, and under its shelter- 
 ing shadow the virtues have grown up. To cast off 
 piety altogether was to the men of an earlier time 
 to pass outside the social bond, to break with im- 
 memorial custom, to be an outcast from family and 
 tribe. But the modern world has witnessed the 
 rise of Ethics to a new importance and a larger 
 independence. The moral life is no longer regarded 
 simply as an aspect of the religious life, or as the 
 outer court of the spiritual temple. Indeed in these 
 days the demand is frequently made that morality 
 
48 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 should be cultivated for its own sake entirely, and 
 we are told it needs no ulterior sanctions. Here is 
 something sure, it is urged, on which many may 
 agree and whose practical value no one doubts ; but 
 in Eeligion all is uncertainty and matter of dispute. 
 Thus in recent years Ethical Societies have sprung 
 up in England and America, which aim at supplying 
 moral teaching and stimulus apart from religious 
 dogma. The leading spirits in these societies do not 
 aim at a reformation of the Church ; they rather 
 appeal to the class which regards Keligion in any of 
 its historic forms as unsatisfactory. Morality, it is 
 contended, wants no religious panoply; it is itself 
 the guarantee of its practical validity and value. 
 Although individuals may disagree about the ulti- 
 mate foundations of Ethics, they can co-operate har- 
 moniously in an association which seeks to deepen 
 the consciousness of duty and to strengthen the 
 sentiment of social obligation. 1 Here, then, we 
 have a denial of the claim of Eeligion to be the 
 necessary guide of life. And we learn that ethical 
 principles supply all the rules of conduct men re- 
 quire. To decide as to the rights and wrongs of this 
 dispute we must come to an understanding about 
 the meaning and function of Ethics and Eeligion. 
 
 1 In a lecture entitled "The Ethical Movement Defined," Dr 
 Stanton Coit gives as its main doctrines (1) devotion to the good 
 of the world, and (2) the highest reverence for individual duty. 
 
The Natural Sciences^ Ethics, and Religion. 49 
 
 The fact that both Natural Science and Ethics 
 have been at variance with Eeligion gives point and 
 urgency to the problem of the relation of Eeligion 
 to the other elements in human culture. Before, 
 then, passing to the further questions involved in 
 the nature and origin, the value and ultimate 
 validity of Eeligion, we may clear the ground a 
 little by discussing the relation of Eeligion to 
 Natural Science and to Ethics. This preliminary 
 investigation will, I think, be useful if, by way of 
 contrast and distinction, it helps to bring into 
 clearer light what is characteristic in Eeligion as 
 well as make plain the significance and scope of 
 scientific and ethical principles. Whatever view is 
 taken of them, Natural Science, Ethics, and Ee- 
 ligion are three normal and constant aspects of 
 human culture. Each has its practical justification 
 and title to existence. And if we try to understand 
 their several functions, and to see their respective 
 limitations, we may perhaps find that it is possible 
 to treat them as coherent elements in the larger 
 whole of human experience. 
 
 We commonly distinguish between a scientific, a 
 religious, and a philosophic point of view. Each 
 offers in its way an explanation of facts in experi- 
 ence, but the explanations are on different levels. 
 It may be useful for us to touch briefly on the his- 
 toric development of these distinctions. 
 
 D 
 
50 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 In the beginnings of culture the three spheres 
 were not differentiated ; the primitive cosmogony 
 or religious myth was at once science, religion, and 
 philosophy wrapt up in one. In early Greek 
 thought the first decisive step was taken which 
 separated the scientific from the religious view of 
 things. For the myths of the popular creed an 
 explanation of the cosmos by known causes was 
 substituted. But as yet no distinction was drawn 
 between science and philosophy. The ovra of the 
 Pre-Socratic thinkers, as Aristotle has told us, were 
 simply the alo-OrjTa. Plato, in clearly marking off 
 sense-perception (aicr^cris) from thought (vorjcns), 
 opened out the way for this further differentiation. 
 In the Platonic system the sciences form a kind of 
 introductory discipline to philosophy, the supreme 
 science of StaXe/crt/c^. 1 The type of science Plato 
 found in mathematics, and he has the mathematical 
 sciences always in view. For him the knowledge 
 which is "scientific" lies between mere belief, or 
 uncriticised opinion, and the supreme knowledge 
 which sees all the facts in the light of the highest 
 principle. Science, therefore, to Plato represents a 
 real but an incomplete form of knowledge, inasmuch 
 
 1 Kep., vii. 533, C. ; Sympos., 210, C. 
 
 The ' Philebus ' marks a stage of Plato's thought considerably later 
 than the 'Kepublic,' but the view of dialectic is substantially the 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 5 1 
 
 as it does not dialectically deduce the postulates 
 from which it sets out. 1 Or as we might put it in 
 the language of our own day, science is an advance 
 on the common consciousness, but it makes assump- 
 tions which philosophy must revise and correct from 
 the higher standpoint of system. 
 
 With Aristotle we note the beginning of a division 
 of knowledge into special disciplines. The Aristo- 
 telian system falls into two parts, theoretical and 
 practical ; and the ^ecup^rt/cat hrurnftud are divided 
 into Mathematics, Physics, and Metaphysics or 
 Theology. But, as we might expect from his 
 method and point of view, the special sciences 
 have a more independent value for Aristotle than 
 for Plato. In contrast to philosophy they are 
 occupied with a particular phase or aspect of re- 
 ality. 2 On the other hand, Aristotle makes no 
 sharp distinction between the special sciences and 
 philosophy. For the latter is simply the most 
 general and so the central science, and deals with 
 the first principles of reality as such. 3 The special 
 sciences investigate grounds or causes in a limited 
 sphere, while Metaphysics goes back to the ultimate 
 grounds of all things. The distinction is not one 
 of method but of scope. It should also be said, that 
 neither for Plato nor Aristotle does the religious 
 
 1 Eep., vi. 510. 11. 
 
 2 Meta., iv. 1. 1, and vi. 1. 3. 3 Meta., i. 2, and xi. 3. 1. 
 
5 2 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 view of the world have any validity apart from the 
 philosophic. 
 
 The close relation with First Philosophy into 
 which Aristotle brought the special sciences was less 
 difficult then, in view of the slender development 
 of the latter. But when the progress in this direc- 
 tion made afterwards in Greece was continued with 
 marvellous success in modern times, the problem 
 became vastly harder. The natural sciences, having 
 gained their independence, set to work with a will ; 
 and they have amassed a great body of detailed 
 knowledge in various departments, which it becomes 
 ever less easy to organise into a systematic whole. 
 The scientific field has been divided and subdivided, 
 and the individual investigator has usually neither 
 time nor interest to discuss the wider bearings of 
 the special knowledge with which he deals. The 
 philosopher, however, cannot evade the duty of 
 giving some general pronouncement on the meaning 
 and value of the knowledge supplied by the par- 
 ticular sciences. Or at least he cannot do so with- 
 out abandoning the claim to be 'synoptic' in the 
 sense of Plato. For the modern world the ' Critique ' 
 of Kant set this problem in a new light. The 
 radical result of Kantian criticism, embodied in the 
 principle that "the understanding makes nature," 
 was to pronounce the accumulated knowledge of the 
 external universe to be phenomenal merely. Beyond 
 
The Natural Sciences ', Ethics, and Religion. 5 3 
 
 the lower realm in which the understanding moves, 
 above the region of things in space and time, lies a 
 real world ; but its portals are for ever barred, alike 
 to the man of science and the speculative inquirer. 
 In this supersensuous world faith finds God, Free- 
 dom, and Immortality. But it was a dubious boon 
 to religion to deliver it from the assaults of the 
 materialist and the sceptic at the expense of making 
 it theoretically unintelligible. Nor could the scien- 
 tific mind, so fruitful in practical results, feel re- 
 conciled to a criticism which cut the ground from 
 beneath it, and refused to assign to its work any 
 definite degree of reality in the ultimate constitu- 
 tion of things. 
 
 To fill up the chasm left by the Kantian criticism, 
 and to rethink experience in a more thorough way, 
 became an urgent task. Hegel sought to do so by 
 abandoning altogether the notion of ' things in 
 themselves,' and by treating reason as one and 
 continuous through all the stages of its development 
 from mere immediacy of consciousness, pure being 
 to absolute self-consciousness, perfect Keality. 
 Broadly speaking, the work of Hegel was to in- 
 terpret the universe as an evolution, whose stages 
 are stages in the development of self-consciousness 
 or reason. Accordingly the standpoint of science 
 represents a level of development above that of the 
 ordinary consciousness but below that of philosophy. 
 
54 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 The similarity to Plato is thus apparent. Hegel's 
 view of science is at all events more satisfactory 
 than that of Kant, for he allows to it a definite 
 degree of reality and a value in the larger system 
 of experience. And it had the undoubted merit 
 of bringing into relief the truth that science pro- 
 ceeds by abstraction ; it concentrates attention upon 
 a special aspect of reality and neglects the rest. 
 On the other hand, few or none will now admit 
 that thought has succeeded in rising to the absolute 
 point of view, and has given the final reinterpre- 
 tation of the results of science. Hegel's own efforts 
 to apply the dialectic to nature were by no means 
 happy. In fact, the scientific investigation of 
 nature is still so incomplete that the present-day 
 thinker, with a better intellectual perspective, re- 
 frains from publishing a ' Naturphilosophie.' Our 
 valuation of the sciences must to some extent be 
 provisional, and cannot go beyond certain broad 
 statements. 
 
 We may take it, however, that Modern Idealism 
 has made it clear that the natural sciences are ab- 
 stract in their point of view, therefore partial in 
 their explanations. They take the objects of outer 
 experience as given, they raise no questions how 
 they come to be given. Yet a fact of outer experi- 
 ence implies concepts as well as percepts in space 
 and time. Apart from the activity of conscious 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 55 
 
 subjects, the object in presentation would not be 
 what it is. With the purpose it has in view natural 
 science rightly neglects the ideal aspect of experi- 
 ence, but in so doing it inevitably sacrifices com- 
 pleteness of interpretation. Accepting, then, reality 
 as given, the objective sciences restrict themselves 
 almost entirely to the mechanical standpoint in 
 dealing with it. They are engaged in determining 
 the quantitative relations of things ; of their qualita- 
 tive differences they have little to say. The sensa- 
 tion of violet is qualitatively distinct from that of red ; 
 but optics, in tracing the distinction to a difference 
 of length in the respective light-waves of violet and 
 red, furnishes an explanation which, if important, is 
 obviously incomplete. Why this particular light- 
 wave should give this particular quality of sensation 
 we do not learn. 
 
 In general the method of the Natural Sciences is 
 to establish a connection between things by the 
 principle of causality. They endeavour to trans- 
 form what at first seem isolated events into a 
 connected series, and in this way they seek to 
 show that experience is rational. To know what 
 precedes and what succeeds a certain fact is practi- 
 cally important ; but it is, even from the standpoint 
 of science, meagre and one-sided as an explanation. 
 Eeflexion shows that elements in the background are 
 also indispensable to the effect. So, as a more com- 
 
56 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 plete statement, science interprets an event through 
 an assemblage of causes. But the result is to show 
 that a perfectly adequate statement of the total 
 grounds of any event is not attainable. Indeed the 
 full presentation of the conditions of an effect would 
 involve the statement of the effect itself, as in turn 
 conditioning the action of its causes. Science, how- 
 ever, cuts this perplexing knot; and in practice it 
 works well by explaining an event through its more 
 prominent, or, for the specific purpose, its more im- 
 portant, conditions. 
 
 Nevertheless when science, though refusing to go 
 beyond the mechanical point of view, bids us rec- 
 ognise the eternal necessity of 'laws of nature/ 
 we pause and ask why. For if we incautiously 
 accept the statement as a major premiss, we may 
 be afterwards presented with the inference that 
 causal initiative, human or divine, is a fiction. 
 There is no place, it is urged, for such effects in 
 the strictly determined order of nature. The ex- 
 pression c law of nature ' is of course anthropo- 
 morphic. And analogy must not lead us to regard 
 such laws as having a validity beyond the partic- 
 ular facts in which they are realised. No natural 
 law can be deduced a priori in the Kantian sense. 
 It neither of itself creates the facts which exemplify 
 it, nor shows why they come to be. A 'law of 
 nature/ as in chemistry, is often no more than a 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 57 
 
 quantitative formula which states the proportions 
 in which elements unite to form new products. 
 That sixteen parts by weight of oxygen unite with 
 two parts of hydrogen to form water is true as a fact 
 but meagre as an explanation. That gravity as a 
 force varies with the mass, and inversely, as the 
 square of the distance, describes how bodies act 
 under certain conditions and no more. Laws are 
 generalised expressions of the behaviour of things, 
 and they are without significance apart from the 
 things. Their ultimate meaning depends on the 
 inner nature of the things of which they are 
 the expression. In fact, the idea of a 'law of 
 nature' seems, under examination, to sink back 
 into the more general principle that nature is 
 uniform. In other words, the things and elements 
 in nature act on and respond to one another in 
 uniform ways, so that experience is continuous, the 
 present harmonises with the past, and the logical 
 movement of thought is in correspondence with the 
 outward order of events. The scientific notion of 
 necessity, like that of law and causality, is not a 
 principle which imposes itself on facts and rules 
 them by some superior right. It can only find 
 what warrant it has in the inner constitution of the 
 facts themselves. And, from its mechanical stand- 
 point, Natural Science is obviously unable to solve 
 this problem. 
 
58 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 The jurisdiction of Natural Science is thus limited. 
 Without going beyond its province it cannot sit in 
 judgment on the spiritual side of experience. On 
 the other hand, Ethics and Eeligion are alike con- 
 cerned to maintain that the mechanical view of 
 nature is not final, that it can and ought to be 
 supplemented. For both presuppose that the world 
 of outer experience subserves moral and spiritual 
 ends. Does nature itself lend any countenance to 
 the contention that the standpoint of mechanism 
 must be transcended ? This at least we know, that 
 to explain mechanically is to explain inadequately. 
 Do the facts, then, demand a teleological interpre- 
 tation? The old argument which demonstrated 
 everywhere the hand of an external designer is 
 discredited, and it is seldom urged now. And one 
 may admit that Bacon's protest against explanation 
 by final causes, on the part of science, was sound 
 advice against confusing two different standpoints. 1 
 Yet nature itself, in setting before us the varied 
 phenomena of life, puts in a plea for teleology. 
 The relation of the parts in^ an organic body visibly 
 calls for a way of regarding them which is higher 
 than mechanical. For we find here a grouping and 
 co-ordination of elements into a whole, which we 
 
 1 (" Causoe finales) quse stint plane ex natura hominis potius quam 
 universi, atque ex hoc fonte philosophiam miris modis corruperunt." 
 'Nov. Org.,'49. 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 59 
 
 make intelligible to ourselves through the notion of 
 means and end. To Aristotle it seemed that the 
 idea of the whole, or complete organism, was the 
 presupposition and final cause (TO o5 l^e/ca) of the 
 arrangement and growth of the parts. His concep- 
 tion of an immanent teleology has been a fruitful 
 one, and it has not lost its value. We cannot 
 ignore the fact that in nature, in the sphere where 
 mechanical explanations prevail, complex products 
 appear in which external causality has been con- 
 verted into a systematic connexion of parts, so that 
 each part is determined in meaning and function 
 by the whole, If, then, within the realm of nature, 
 forms of unity which are determined by an end are 
 present beyond dispute, can we draw any inference 
 as to the constitution of the world in which these 
 forms appear? The inorganic elements we know 
 are made subservient to the life-process, they are 
 converted into means to an end. This would be 
 impossible, were these elements in their inner 
 character not susceptible of a connexion which is 
 more than mechanical. Tf the material world were 
 only a vast series of externally related things with 
 no inward unity, the continuous process of life 
 within it would be a hopeless puzzle. The nature 
 which constantly ministers to that which is clearly 
 teleological must, in some sense, be a whole per- 
 vaded by the principle of end. 
 
6o The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 The mechanical method is an abstract and, for 
 practical purposes, highly convenient way of inter- 
 preting nature. Mechanism has its value as an 
 aspect of a more concrete point of view ; and that 
 within its limits it is valid the discoveries of 
 science attest. It only becomes false when it 
 asserts its own sufficiency. The mechanism of the 
 organ is implied in the production of the fugue 
 which is played upon it. But it would be ridicu- 
 lous to say that it explains the musical meaning 
 of the piece as a harmonious whole. 
 
 When we pass from the domain of nature to 
 that of consciousness, the futility of a merely 
 mechanical interpretation is transparent. The point 
 has been so often and so effectively insisted on 
 that we do not feel called upon to urge it here. 
 Nor does the notion of psycho-physical parallelism, 
 or the view of mind as an epiphenomenon, offer 
 any real explanation of the nature and origin of 
 consciousness. 1 If an organic world supervenes on 
 a mechanical system, and if life in turn blossoms 
 into conscious selves which think, feel, and will, 
 and invest experience with meaning and value, we 
 must construe the beginning in the light of the 
 rich result. The e^epyeta interprets the SiW/xis, 
 and not vice versa. The deeper and more com- 
 plete interpretation of reality will be spiritual, and 
 
 1 Vid. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, caps. 11 and 12. t 
 

 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 6 1 
 
 what seems lowest must have some affinity with 
 spirit. The procedure of natural scientists to some 
 extent supports this contention, for they find it 
 necessary to idealise "matter" to fit it for the 
 rdle it has to play. 
 
 " Natura non facit saltum " was once a favourite 
 motto with physicists, and Leibniz gave a higher 
 turn to the principle when he declared experience 
 to be continuous through all its grades. It is of 
 value to remember that no phase of experience is 
 isolated, but each derives meaning from its relation 
 to other phases. And so it would be overstraining 
 the point to say that the ethical world represents 
 a complete break in the chain of development. In 
 the region of instinctive behaviour, in the uncon- 
 scious but purposive selection of what conserves the 
 life of the individual and the species, it may be 
 conceded there is a dim forecast of the higher 
 realm of moral conduct. For morality is also action 
 which conduces to the wellbeing of the individual 
 and race, and the customs and laws of primitive 
 society were developments which ministered to the 
 conservation of the social whole. And while with 
 the deepening of self-consciousness, and the growth 
 of personal character, these laws gradually take a 
 higher and more distinctly ethical character, it is 
 still true that we cannot fix a point and say that 
 there is here a break in the continuity of the 
 
62 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 process. The danger is that a false inference may 
 be drawn from the principle of continuity. For 
 if you assume that you have got a complete 
 explanation of the facts on a lower level, and 
 then suppose that the same explanation must 
 hold at a higher level, you are likely enough 
 to go astray. The abstract principles of mechan- 
 ism, for instance, give a useful interpretation 
 of natural phenomena: apply them to spiritual 
 phenomena, and they are notoriously insuffi- 
 cient. In the same way the self-regarding in- 
 stinct may be helpful in shedding light on bio- 
 logical facts ; but make it the universal law of 
 action, and by it explain all civic virtue and moral 
 heroism, and your principle breaks down. The 
 truth would seem to be that such generalisations, 
 even in the lower sphere, are not perfect and ex- 
 haustive, but their inadequacy becomes palpable in 
 the higher. Hence it seems to me that the con- 
 tinuity of the ethical and spiritual life of man 
 with lower levels of being, instead of suggesting 
 an interpretation of the higher by the lower, 
 should warn us that the explanations which will 
 work at the lower level are really incomplete. 
 
 It is undoubted that man as a personal and 
 ethical being stands in marked contrast to the 
 merely natural order of things. Though person- 
 ality be gradually evolved, it none the less marks 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 63 
 
 a distinctive stage of world -development. And 
 first and foremost, in the moral world the differ- 
 ence between what is and what ought to be has 
 come to decisive expression. Man does not con- 
 fine his judgment to mere facts. Over against 
 fact he sets up the notion of value, and declares 
 that the good which is not here and now, ought 
 to be. The idea of moral obligation is the great 
 obstacle to the satisfactory treatment of Ethics 
 from the strictly scientific point of view. Up to 
 a point, indeed, such a line of treatment may 
 be followed, but only up to a point ; and in the 
 end we cannot get quit of the fact that Ethics 
 is a normative science. It is not merely descrip- 
 tive ; it prescribes rules of conduct and sets forth 
 what ought to be. 
 
 All conduct, as Aristotle has told us, is directed 
 to some end or good : moral conduct is so directed 
 consciously and of choice. It is necessary, however, 
 to distinguish the immanent teleology which exists 
 in nature from the teleology of moral action. In 
 the former we have the whole determining the 
 interaction of its elements and developing itself 
 through it. The final end is thus the comple- 
 mentary notion to that of causality. In the one 
 case we go from the parts to the whole, in the 
 other from the whole to the parts. And so, we 
 may remark in passing, we cannot hold with Kant 
 
64 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 that cause is constitutive, but the end only regu- 
 lative. For the end is the more complete state- 
 ment of what is involved in the cause. But here 
 we cannot speak of the end being a motive to 
 the parts, nor is there any contrast implied be- 
 tween a higher and a lower end. The particular 
 quality which attaches to the word ought is want- 
 ing. Or, what is the same thing, moral growth 
 is not a movement determined from point to 
 point by the completed result. An end which 
 thus dominates the process of development is not 
 an ethical end, and though you might speak of it 
 as that which has to be, you could not speak of 
 it as that which ought to be. In other words 
 man selects his ends, chooses between them, and 
 determines himself. Moral obligation rests on the 
 freedom of the subject ; remove this, and obli- 
 gation sinks to non-moral constraint. I suppose 
 that most people will agree that moral conduct 
 presupposes some kind of freedom, and that there 
 is a sense in which such conduct is not mechani- 
 cally determined. But nevertheless there is dis- 
 agreement as to what exactly is signified by free- 
 dom. And even though the question is an old 
 one, it may be well to examine it. 
 
 The Natural Sciences, we may take it, cannot 
 disprove freedom. For, on the one hand, they 
 cannot show that the mechanical point of view is 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 65 
 
 applicable to the spiritual world : and, on the other 
 hand, they do not prove that nature itself is 
 satisfactorily explained from the standpoint of 
 mechanism. Hence they have no title to insist 
 that nature is a strictly determined whole which 
 excludes the free realisation of moral ends within 
 it. As Science, then, is not in a position to op- 
 pose a non possumus to the claim for freedom, the 
 validity of the claim must be judged on other 
 grounds. And to begin with, it is highly signifi- 
 cant that the claim should be made. Those who 
 deny freedom ought to explain why we act, and 
 cannot help acting, under the idea of freedom. 
 " Paradoxical as it may appear," says Prof. Ward, 
 " even the illusion of activity and spontaneity is 
 certain evidence that activity and spontaneity 
 somehow exist." And certainly if man were only 
 a conscious automaton, it does not seem possible 
 to offer any plausible reason why he should even 
 imagine himself free. 
 
 The most ordinary analysis will show that there 
 is that in moral action which differentiates it 
 qualitatively from mechanical process. Between 
 the stimuli A, B, C, and the acts which correspond 
 to them X, Y, Z there intervenes the conscious 
 subject S. And the fact that A, B, and C can 
 only become motives by losing their externality 
 and forming part of the living content of S, this 
 
 E 
 
66 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 constitutes the difference between compulsion and 
 self-determination, as Aristotle pointed out. 1 Man, 
 as has often been said, is free, because he is not 
 externally determined but determines himself. 
 
 It is, however, apparent that the idea of self- 
 determination may cover two distinct conceptions 
 of personal freedom. In the one case, where 
 there are alternatives before the individual, he 
 chooses between them, and while he selects one 
 it was possible for him to select the other. This 
 we may call the freedom of the real alternative. 
 In the other case he chooses, but his whole char- 
 acter is expressed in the choice, and of acts that 
 seem alternative only one is consistent with the 
 self. A man's character determines his action, 
 but as character is just the self as it has come to 
 be qualified, we can still say he is self-determined 
 and therefore free. It is of importance to the 
 interpretation of the religious consciousness that 
 we should decide, if possible, which of these views 
 is to be accepted. For the way we regard moral 
 evil, and the manner in which we construe the 
 act of faith, will depend on the kind of freedom 
 we take to be true. 
 
 Now it must be frankly admitted that some 
 considerations tell in favour of what we may call 
 
 1 Eth. Nic., iii. 1. Biaiov Se ov 17 a-PX*l 2<t>#ev, roiavrr] ovcra ev 
 $ fj,r)$v (rv/A/JaAAcTai 6 Trparrwv r) 6 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 67 
 
 spiritual determinism, and it has commended itself 
 to many philosophical thinkers. If choice is 
 absolutely indifferent, it is hardly moral ; and in 
 practical life we do not suppose S to be just as 
 likely to choose A as B. Moral valuation goes on 
 the assumption that acts are somehow the outcome 
 of character expressed in desire. And experience 
 of men serves to show that there is very little 
 which is arbitrary in human conduct. Moreover, 
 against those who maintain a real contingency of 
 choice, it is contended that this means the intro- 
 duction of a fictitious pure self which is without 
 content ; and so the vital nerve is cut which binds 
 the character to the act of the agent, and makes 
 him responsible. Still, when all is said, spiritual 
 determinism raises grave difficulties, although those 
 who advocate it are not always willing to allow 
 this. The difficulties come out in the facts of 
 remorse and repentance. We are here confronted 
 with the dilemma that, if the acts repented of are 
 not connected with the character of the agent, they 
 are not really his and he cannot truly regret them. 
 On the other hand, there would be no cause for 
 regret if the individual could not have acted other- 
 wise. Eepentance, to the determinist, is an illusion 
 engendered by a discord between a man's present 
 emotional condition and his condition when he did 
 the deed. The interpretation, it must be said, is 
 
68 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 not credible. A similar difficulty confronts the 
 spiritual determinist in dealing with the fact of a 
 moral reformation in the individual history. In 
 his view the self-conscious principle in man has 
 transformed the natural desires and dispositions 
 into a moral character. Between the present and 
 past of this character there is a necessary connex- 
 ion, and each new act is an outcome of the past 
 and becomes a condition of the future. How, then, 
 does man draw from the past the will to reform 
 himself in the present ? The late Prof. Green has 
 suggested as an explanation that a man's past 
 conduct may have been determined by "a concep- 
 tion of personal good" which has failed to bring 
 satisfaction, and his attitude may be one of " con- 
 scious revulsion from it." 1 True ; but the self 
 which thus reacts against the past is not the deter- 
 minate outcome of the past. The present reaction 
 of the self is not intelligible apart from the past. 
 Yet the self which the past has failed to satisfy 
 cannot fairly represent the whole character de- 
 veloped in the past. Else why the revulsion ? 
 
 We may find some help in this difficulty by con- 
 sidering more closely the relation of the self to 
 character. The self which stands for the person 
 with his history, his interests, ideals, is an ideal 
 construction, not a fact immediately given. Here 
 
 1 Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 115. 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 69 
 
 the self includes the character it has developed in 
 time. But behind the ideally constructed self there 
 is the self which is the basis of memory, recognition, 
 and continuity of interest. Ideal construction with- 
 out an active centre which constructs and is referred 
 to does not seem possible. On the other hand, the 
 character which is related to and owned by the 
 fundamental self is not a perfectly coherent and 
 organic whole. It is formed gradually out of un- 
 harmonised natural tendencies, dispositions, and 
 desires, as the self works itself free from mere 
 impulse and comes to fuller consciousness of itself. 
 The inner life is, to use a figure, composed of 
 different strata at different levels, and some of 
 these may commonly fall within the focus of con- 
 sciousness while others lie more usually in the 
 subconscious region. The self in its development 
 from the material to the spiritual has to construct 
 from these a consistent whole of character. A 
 fallacy seems to lurk in the ordinary assertion 
 that action is necessarily determined by character, 
 for, in point of fact, man in his temporal history 
 has never unified his character so completely as to 
 exclude the possibility of a real alternative in 
 conduct. Every moral act is related to an aspect 
 of a man's character, else we should not commend 
 him or condemn him for it, and he himself would 
 not be conscious of self - approval or repentance. 
 
70 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 But all acts are not equally characteristic. We re- 
 mark, for instance, of an act which springs directly 
 from the main current of an individual's interest 
 and effort, that it was "So like him." Of another 
 act we say that it was " So unlike him," implying 
 that it proceeds from a more obscure and less active 
 aspect of his inner life. The truth seems to be that 
 the self as will which determines to action can take 
 up into the content of its will different conceptions 
 of the self as object. These conceptions may not 
 harmonise, though all are potentially capable of 
 more or less close relation to the self which wills, 
 for they have had a place in the development of 
 the inner life. And a true liberty to choose between 
 them is not inconsistent with a constant relation of 
 character and conduct, arid it gives a real meaning 
 to facts like repentance and moral obligation. 
 
 Freedom of moral choice has limits imposed on it 
 by the inner life of the individual, for the moral 
 act must always be related to that life. Before 
 self-consciousness has developed the rude elements 
 of character out of the natural desires, there is no 
 responsible action. On the other hand, the charac- 
 ter as it becomes more and more unified and con- 
 solidated, as it is drawn into more close organic 
 relation to the self which wills, so does it leave less 
 scope for the alternative in action. As a man be- 
 comes thoroughly bad, his power to choose the good 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 7 1 
 
 diminishes : and the more disciplined we are in 
 the life of virtue, the less does evil appeal to us. 
 In general, the more fully and consistently we take 
 up a conception of self into the principles of our 
 will, the more we lessen the possibility of develop- 
 ing an alternative conception. Hence the larger 
 and ideal meaning which has been attached to 
 freedom. In this sense freedom denotes the fullest 
 and most harmonious development of human powers, 
 a state in which goodness is the immanent law of 
 life, and evil has ceased altogether to be a motive. 
 This of course is an ideal which in temporal experi- 
 ence is not attained; all that the individual can 
 hope for is to make progress towards it. The im- 
 portant point is that man's path to this higher 
 freedom is by the real exercise of his choice, and 
 the journey is significant and testing because of the 
 alternatives which open out before the wayfarer. 
 For the ideal freedom postulates a real freedom 
 to realise it. 
 
 We have so far discussed the problem of freedom 
 from the individual point of view, but we are fully 
 aware that the question has a social aspect. Behind 
 the inner life of the individual, and fostering its 
 growth, is the larger life of the society to which he 
 belongs. The nature of the alternatives which are 
 possible to him is conditioned by the stage of social 
 progress and the character of his social environment. 
 
72 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 The virtue and vice of the savage are not those of 
 the civilised man, and the points where moral 
 choice was most urgently necessary were not the 
 same in mediaeval as in modern times. Again, the 
 full fruition of human capacities is not possible in 
 isolation : man only finds scope and exercise for his 
 powers in interaction with others. So we could not 
 conceive that an individual should attain to perfect 
 freedom apart from a perfected society. It is true, 
 indeed, that some men have been remarkably in 
 advance of their age and environment. Still there 
 are boundaries which even genius cannot overpass. 
 Shakespeare could not have appeared in the age 
 of Dante, nor Isaiah among the Athenian contem- 
 poraries of Socrates. The highest civic, moral, or 
 artistic powers cannot come to full and harmonious 
 utterance in a rude, lawless, or decadent society. 
 For though these capacities be latent in a man, 
 there is neither a sympathetic medium to elicit 
 them nor a free field for their exercise. The inner 
 development of the individual, therefore, is historic- 
 ally and socially conditioned. And the advance to 
 the higher freedom is a historic process, in which 
 society and individuals act and react one on another. 
 The development of this ideal must, then, be studied 
 historically, and to this aspect of ethical develop- 
 ment we now turn. 
 
 Man is by nature a TroXmKoz/ tfiov as Aristotle 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 73 
 
 said, and morality is social in its origin. Ethics 
 coming from e#os and morals from mores, point 
 to the ancestry of moral ideas in customs. The 
 study of the subject from the evolutionary stand- 
 point dispels the illusion that, from the first, 
 morality was a separate province of life presided 
 over by a special ' faculty.' If we go back to the 
 tribe, and we cannot go further, primitive ethics 
 are there represented simply by tribal customs. 
 The norm of conduct is the traditional usage or 
 unwritten law of the tribe, and conformity with 
 this law is the rudimentary expression of what 
 ought to be. Fear of punishment human or divine 
 ensuing on breach of the custom, is the earliest 
 phase of conscience. At this level of culture per- 
 sonality is undeveloped, and the social whole is 
 all-important. Spiritual life is hampered by material 
 conditions, and there is no independent growth of 
 the inner nature. Hence we find a lack of specific 
 character in the products of the primitive mind. 
 There is a certain monotony in early myth, custom, 
 and religion, and the same circle of ideas recurs 
 among many races. And the development of per- 
 sonal character is restricted by the narrow range 
 of possible motives. Man's gradual triumph over 
 natural impediments, and his advance from savagery 
 to civilisation, are primarily due to the pressure of 
 spiritual life within him. In the course of develop- 
 
74 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 ment the inner life deepens and defines itself pari 
 passu with the growth of social organisation. A 
 cardinal point in that history, regarded objectively, 
 is the transition from the tribe to the nation as 
 social whole. To the outer expansion correspond 
 an inner concentration and advance in self -con- 
 sciousness which make possible the rdle of law- 
 giver, prophet, and reformer. The inward disposi- 
 tion now receives a value over against external 
 acts. By - and - by legal enactments and ancient 
 usages are supplemented by the thought of "un- 
 written laws," of larger scope and more divine 
 authority. So the human end is defined in terms 
 of law, which is the * custom ; of the olden time 
 idealised and made universal. To the Hebrew 
 prophet this end was obedience to the law of the 
 Covenant - God, written on " fleshly tables of the 
 heart." To the Greek thinker it was participation 
 in that immanent justice which is the "bond of 
 perfectness" in society. 
 
 The growing consciousness of the worth of the 
 subjective side of morality paved the way for that 
 distinction between ethics and politics which was 
 made after Aristotle. It is a development of this 
 tendency which, in modern times, has prompted the 
 effort to determine morality by conscience and to- 
 value conduct simply by motives. Conscience, said 
 Bishop Butler, is " the rule of right within " ; the 
 
The Natural Sciences y Ethics, and Religion. 75 
 
 one unconditional moral good, said Kant, is " a 
 good will." We sympathise with these views as 
 a protest against an external utilitarianism, but 
 the rigid exclusion of results from the valuation 
 of conduct is not possible. The motive and the 
 consequences of an act must both enter into a full 
 appreciation of it. In practice we should dis- 
 approve of actions done with the best intent, but 
 the results of which the doer had ample oppor- 
 tunity of seeing to be socially demoralising. And 
 our disapproval of the acts would mean a disap- 
 proval of the character from which they proceeded. 
 The historic and evolutionary methods of the nine- 
 teenth century have served to correct a one-sided 
 stress on the subjective side of morality. The 
 essential interdependence of society and individuals, 
 revealed in their common growth, has been insisted 
 on. The good for the individual is recognised to 
 be a common good, and subjective approval must 
 in the last resort be based on this good. From 
 the school of scientific evolution we have the chief 
 good described as " social health," or "general in- 
 crease of life." These definitions at least imply 
 that valuation must be in terms of the ethical end, 
 and that this end is social as well as individual. 
 As definitions, however, they must be reckoned 
 partial and one-sided. In fact, the ethical end must 
 be regarded not only as a common end but as ideal, 
 
76 The Natiiral Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 if we are to do justice to the inner life which is 
 the source of moral values. In other words, the 
 perfection which is the ethical end is an ideal which 
 transcends present attainment, and implies a per- 
 fected social system as its condition. This corre- 
 sponds to the higher freedom already referred to, 
 the actualisation of all capacities for good in the 
 individual in and through a society which makes 
 this possible. A school of English ethical writers 
 has termed this ideal self-realisation, and the phrase 
 can be commended on several grounds. For it 
 keeps in view the fact that the highest value must 
 be something personal. If a social system is good, 
 it is because the good has its living centre in the 
 personal beings who make up the system. Ethical 
 goodness has a reference in the last resort to persons, 
 and the fact is kept in mind when we speak of it 
 as a realisation of the self. Again this designation 
 of the ideal does justice to the truth that the de- 
 velopment is in and through a historical process. It 
 is a making real in time what the self has in it to 
 become through interaction with other selves. We 
 progress to the ideal by the way of the better, but 
 we cannot now give full content to it. Only through 
 the process of development itself could we know how 
 much there is in a fully realised self. The definition 
 has the terseness and the general applicability which 
 are needed in a definition of the ethical end. 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 77 
 
 Still there is an ambiguity in the phrase, as will 
 be seen when we ask, What is the relation of the 
 ideal self to the actual self ? Plainly the self which 
 has to be made real has not here and now come to 
 the fulness of its utterance. It must be a larger 
 self than the already existing self. Is this ideal 
 self implicit in individual selves ? the flower and 
 fruit, as it were, while they are the germ ? And 
 is ethical progress a progress by which the ideal 
 self works itself out through the historically given 
 self by an inward course of development? If so, 
 self-realisation would have a lower counterpart in 
 organic growth. But there can be little doubt 
 that it is not possible by this construction to do 
 justice to the facts of the moral life. For the 
 ideal self does not explain the real moral develop- 
 ment of the individual in time, which is not con- 
 tinuous and consistent. To understand this we are 
 thrown back on the self which determines itself to 
 act, and in choice identifies itself with conceptions 
 of self which are not always compatible. If we 
 are to describe the moral life in time as a process 
 of self-realisation, we must mean that the self 
 which men are realising is a projected or future 
 self. The self which is taken into the content of 
 the will as end is not the complete and ideal self. 
 It may be an idea of self lower than what we are. 
 But if the act is morally good, it is a self better 
 
78 The Natural Sciences ', Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 than the existing self, and represents a value in 
 excess of that already attained. The "ought" is 
 ever reflected against the background of the pre- 
 sent. Yet it is not, as we see it, an eternally 
 fixed beacon -light but a luminous point which 
 moves with the background against which it is 
 projected. The better self which ought to be real- 
 ised is conditioned by the self which is, and this 
 in turn is largely influenced by the historical and 
 racial environment in which it appears. Ideals, 
 we all know, vary with individuals and races and 
 epochs in history. Accordingly the end defined 
 as self - realisation has a certain vagueness. We 
 want, if possible, to know more about the kind of 
 self which should be realised, that we may have 
 some principle of appreciation to go on. 
 
 In these circumstances we are forced to ask, 
 whether the idea of a supreme good, or perfectly 
 realised self, is more than an abstract generalisa- 
 tion from the partial forms of good which have 
 existed. It has not been shown, and it may not 
 be possible to show in a convincing way, by a 
 study of human progress, that the diverse ideals 
 of various races and ages are slowly converging 
 towards a central good. And at the best our 
 survey of the evolution of experience is limited. 
 But still it is a very unsatisfactory view that the 
 supreme ideal is only a useful fiction, and has no 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 79 
 
 reality. For then there would be no reason why 
 different men and races should not content them- 
 selves where they could with quite different con- 
 ceptions of human good. And there could not 
 be any sure conviction on the meaning of progress 
 and the direction in which it lay. For there would 
 be no goal by which to judge of movement. We 
 seem driven to conclude that a Supreme Ideal must 
 in some way be real, if the ends of conduct are to 
 be co-ordinated, if partial ideals are to be trans- 
 cended, and if the good is to grow from less to 
 more. In what sense are we to say, then, that 
 the ideal of a perfectly realised self is real ? Here 
 the student of Ethics is forced, whether he likes 
 it or not, to enter the domain of metaphysics. 
 Readers of Green's ' Prolegomena to Ethics ' will 
 remember that he found it necessary to postulate 
 that the fully realised self was actual in the Eternal 
 Consciousness or God. 1 And he endeavours to 
 bring the ideal into an operative connexion with 
 the historical process by his theory that the in- 
 dividual is in possibility what the Eternal Self 
 is in actuality. Of God, Green remarks, "He 
 is a Being in whom we exist," and " He is all we 
 are capable of becoming." This is not the place 
 to discuss the speculative difficulties in Green's 
 doctrine of the relation of the Eternal to the in- 
 
 1 Op. tit., p. 196 ff. 
 
8o The Natiiral Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 dividual consciousness. But we must ask if it 
 offers a satisfactory solution of the ethical problem 
 involved. The difficulty lies in the connexion of 
 the Eternal and Ideal Self, which is above de- 
 velopment, with the development of the self in 
 time. If the finite self knows itself in God to 
 possess eternally the complete good it seeks in 
 piecemeal fashion in time, this temporal develop- 
 ment partakes of the nature of appearance and 
 loses value in consequence. And if the eternally 
 perfect Self is so intimately bound up with our 
 self -consciousness, it does not seem clear what 
 spiritual gain comes of the temporal efforts after 
 a higher good, or why there should be such a 
 circuitous process. But we may cling to the reality 
 and value of the development in time. We may 
 say that the perfectly realised self somehow exists 
 in God, and is the final form of goodness, though 
 it is differentiated from the self which wills the 
 good in time. Then, if we hold to self-realisation 
 as an absolute principle, it is hard to see how the 
 separation of the two selves can be overcome. 
 Between the temporal becoming of the self and 
 its eternal goal inner identity, and so moral con- 
 tinuity, is wanting. For development presupposes 
 incompleteness : and we cannot conceive a process 
 of self-realisation issuing in a timeless and perfect 
 self, which is bound by continuity of consciousness 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 8 1 
 
 and character to the self which wills the good in 
 experience. That is to say, the self as active will 
 cannot bridge the cleft between the real and the 
 ideal, and freedom does not come as the fruition 
 of moral endeavour. 
 
 The course of the argument thus seems to have 
 brought us to a dilemma. We saw that if a final 
 good or highest value did not exist, there was no 
 trustworthy test of value or determination of pro- 
 gress. And yet, when we try to give an ultimate 
 expression to the ethical end, we find ourselves 
 entangled in contradictions. It seems to me that 
 the only solution to this difficulty lies in the 
 recognition that the ethical consciousness itself 
 is not ultimate and must be transcended. Self- 
 realisation as an ethical principle is not at fault. 
 It is a good working idea of the ethical end, and 
 up to a point satisfies the needs of a theory on 
 the subject. It only becomes contradictory when 
 we try to state it as an absolute principle of 
 spiritual life. For no working out of the moral 
 ideal brings man to the fulfilment of his destiny 
 in the real universe. The Eternal and Perfect 
 Self exists, but by no process of self-realisation 
 can the individual become identical with it. The 
 endeavour of the developing moral life comes to 
 its goal not in the sphere of morality but in that 
 of religion, and here spiritual life takes a new and 
 
 F 
 
82 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 higher form. In communion with God, the Perfect 
 Good, man finds, in principle at least, that comple- 
 tion of himself which by no effort of his own after 
 the good has he been able to gain. The deeper 
 drift of the moral life comes to light in religion, 
 and through religion receives a satisfying meaning. 
 God, as Plato noted, rather than man is the true 
 measure of value. 1 And the religious consciousness 
 is the final expression of a man's personal attitude 
 to life. 
 
 From the formal point of view, then, Eeligion 
 is the goal and completion of Ethics, and there is 
 no antagonism between them. On the level of 
 Ethics man seeks the satisfaction of the self by 
 a process of realising the good in time. Eeligion 
 does not nullify this process but transcends it. 
 The satisfaction man seeks under the form of the 
 moral life it gives, not in the way of personal 
 achieved gain, but in the form of an inward com- 
 pletion and harmony wrought by union with God. 
 It is true, as we pointed out before, that in the 
 historical evolution of Ethics and Eeligion the 
 content of the moral consciousness has sometimes 
 been at discord with the content of the religious 
 consciousness. But such antagonism is temporary : 
 it is not grounded in the nature of things, and has 
 been useful in bringing about a more harmonious 
 
 1 Laws, 716 c. 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 83 
 
 relationship. And there can be no doubt that in 
 the course of development the moral consciousness 
 has powerfully influenced religion. For while 
 religion fostered the ethical virtues by acting as 
 a social bond, the ethical spirit in turn reacted 
 on religion, and purified and elevated it. The 
 growing perception of moral values on earth gave 
 man a nobler conception of the things in heaven. 
 The object of faith in every higher religion is 
 qualified by ethical predicates. Yet morality is 
 not the basis of religion, since it really presupposes 
 it. For man would not be moral if he had it not 
 in him to be more than moral. The pursuit of ends 
 entails a final end, and appreciation of value rests 
 on a Supreme Value. But in the region of moral 
 endeavour the ideal is elusive and fades, 
 
 " For ever and for ever when we move." 
 
 The fact that man follows and follows vainly the 
 fugitive ideal, is a token that he is somehow cap- 
 able of the satisfaction for which he yearns. He 
 condemns the good he has realised as partial be- 
 cause he feels the contact and appeal of the Good 
 which is complete. And if he is conscious of failure 
 to gain the larger freedom by his own endeavour, 
 it is because he has had a foretaste of the freedom 
 which comes through obedience. 
 
 The transition of the ethical into the religious 
 
84 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 consciousness is a movement from a narrower to 
 a larger and more concrete point of view. Eeligion 
 is the expression of a practical relation to experi- 
 ence and its ground. This relation is established 
 by faith, and faith is the utterance of the free 
 spirit within. Our religious faith is just the 
 personal affirmation of the ultimate meaning life 
 has for us. The soul which temporal experience 
 cannot satisfy declares that there is a Being who 
 can satisfy its deepest needs. So religion is the 
 personal expression of human trust in a Keality 
 behind the changing world of experience, a reality 
 at once the source and end of all partial good. 
 Man rises in faith above the strife and limitation 
 of a world where the good develops painfully, 
 and here and now realises in some degree that 
 his broken and fragmentary life is being har- 
 monised and completed by the indwelling Life of 
 God. 
 
 The psychological motives to religion, as we shall 
 see afterwards, are complex. But they all involve 
 the principle that man is a limited and dependent 
 being, who yet seeks more than he can find within 
 himself. Were men " Finished and finite clods, 
 untroubled by a spark," they would never be 
 religious. An inner need impels man to religion, 
 and faith posits the object to supply the need. 
 Here we have not intellectual inference, but the 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 85 
 
 more insistent logic of the inner life. The univer- 
 sality of religion is a testimony that the need which 
 is expressed by faith is a normal outcome of human 
 nature. Still, it has often been regarded as a weak- 
 ness that the attitude of the religious consciousness 
 to its object should be one of faith rather than 
 reason. In this respect religion, it is said, is at 
 a disadvantage compared with the Natural Sciences 
 and Ethics which are based on the stable foundation 
 of reason. But this is to overstate the case to the 
 disadvantage of religion ; for the Natural Sciences 
 and Ethics also involve faith, if perhaps not so 
 obviously. The man of science, for example, trusts 
 the principles on which he works, but the field in 
 which he can apply them, and the test to which 
 he can put them, are restricted. And with the 
 ampler evolution of experience they may require 
 modification in the future, just as the modern in- 
 vestigator has revised the principles on which 
 primitive man interpreted nature. The scientific 
 man believes that the particular connexion he 
 establishes between elements, and the ' laws ' he 
 finds in nature, will be valid of experience distant 
 in time and place from his own. Yet he could 
 not make this good by logical proof. A perfect 
 guarantee of his generalisations could only be 
 attained by a rational insight into experience as 
 an inclusive and systematic whole, which determines 
 
86 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 the development of its parts. Needless to say, the 
 man of science has no such insight. And though 
 his belief in his explanations may have excellent 
 practical justification, this only helps to show that 
 it contains an element of faith. 
 
 In the region of Ethics faith even more plainly 
 plays a part. Those moral ideals which grow out 
 of the inner life of men are no purely intellectual 
 creations, nor do we believe in them on rational 
 grounds simply. Indeed we could not think them 
 out in clear and detailed form, and we only realise 
 gradually their meaning as we progress towards 
 them. We have faith in their reality and value, 
 but we could not prove these. The appeal of the 
 ' ought ' to the will of man as embodying a value 
 he has not yet, must always contain a demand on 
 his faith. The truth is that faith and reason both 
 issue out of the personal life of man and develop 
 with personal development, and neither is alto- 
 gether separated from the 'other. Faith certainly 
 cannot be held to exclude thought. When it is 
 used in the lower sense of supposition, the mere 
 opinion (Sda) of Plato, it is largely, if not entirely, 
 an imperfectly developed intellectual process. And 
 even that more definitely and intimately personal 
 faith which is the expression of emotional and 
 practical demands, can only attain clearness and 
 generality by connecting itself with ideas which 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 87 
 
 are given through the intellect. But its distin- 
 guishing feature is that it is personal at the core, 
 and has its stronghold in the emotions and the 
 will ; and to this we can trace that characteristic 
 of faith in virtue of which it often continues to 
 affirm the reality of its postulate even against the 
 verdict of reason. Thought, again, seeks to present 
 a larger and connected view of things, and it tries 
 to exclude the subjective and emotional element 
 from its working. But it develops on a personal 
 basis, and it never succeeds in becoming strictly 
 impersonal. The operation of thought, moreover, 
 is always incomplete. It has to begin somewhere 
 and to assume something, but it can never come 
 back on its beginnings and take them up into an 
 all-inclusive whole. Hence reason can never abso- 
 lutely justify its conceptions on grounds of reason. 
 Thought is supplemented by an act of faith which 
 justifies a conception on grounds of value. And the 
 value -judgment springs from the inner personal 
 life, and we cannot reduce it to the theoretical 
 judgment, though there cannot ultimately be a 
 dualism between them. 
 
 If this view be correct, the prominence of faith 
 in religion is not a token of special defect. The 
 range of faith is wide, and reason cannot take over 
 its office. And it belongs to the psychological 
 nature of religion that the intellectual element 
 
88 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 should not be so dominant in it as is the case 
 with philosophy. 
 
 The function of faith in religion will become 
 plainer to us, if we keep in mind that the mere 
 desire for explanation could not of itself beget 
 religion. Piety would be unmeaning in a purely 
 intellectual being. The restless endeavour of the 
 will, the pressure of emotional need as well as the 
 thoughts which " wander through eternity," are 
 all active in creating the demand for an object 
 which can satisfy and harmonise the inner life. 
 Hence no intellectual conception can exhaust the 
 significance of the object of religious faith. To the 
 piously disposed a philosophic notion of the Infinite 
 is a stone rather than bread. In view of what the 
 object of faith does and means for those who are 
 religious, we must also conceive it in terms of 
 value as a highest value which gives order and 
 meaning to the partial values realised in the life 
 of the individual and the race. That the spirit 
 of man, which seeks support and satisfaction in 
 communion with an unseen object, finds what it 
 seeks, is, in some degree, an evidence that faith 
 does not fall down before a phantom of its own 
 creation but establishes contact with reality. 
 
 Eeligion, although its aim is not theoretical, yet 
 as it postulates a highest value which completes 
 and harmonises the personal life, involves a Welt- 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 89 
 
 anschauung. Like philosophy it presents us with 
 a view of the world as a whole, and so furnishes 
 a wider outlook than either Science or Ethics. 
 That outlook is primarily an appreciation, a judg- 
 ment of facts in terms of a central value. To the 
 religious man as such, scientific explanations are of 
 minor interest ; he rather considers whither things 
 tend and what their worth is in relation to the 
 perfect good. Life unrolls before him as a system 
 of ends, which have meaning and coherence by 
 reference to a supreme End. So the world becomes 
 a graduated order seen sub specie boni. Yet it is 
 not true to say, as some do, that the religious 
 consciousness moves entirely on the lines of the 
 value-judgment. For the religious man must think 
 as well as feel and will, and the kingdom of the 
 soul cannot be at peace if thought is in rebellion. 
 So he cannot help regarding his highest value as 
 somehow satisfying thought and explaining what 
 exists. He derives the world from God, the 
 Supreme Good. But the religious mind, we repeat, 
 is not interested in finding significance in things 
 through their complex relations to one another. 
 It neglects the intermediate links, and construes 
 nature and life by the final purpose which is being 
 wrought out in them. But inasmuch as it does 
 this, religion involves a synthesis which gives 
 meaning to reality. In the more developed re- 
 
QO The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 ligions, which have expanded into systems of 
 theology, considerable emphasis is frequently laid 
 on the fact that they explain things, and up to a 
 point at least satisfy the demands of the intellect. 
 Nevertheless religion neither does nor can identify 
 itself fully with the standpoint of intellectualism. 
 It will not embark on a thorough criticism of its 
 own postulates, and pleads the necessity of faith. 
 It refuses to admit that the world of values can be 
 reduced to categories of thought. The stronghold 
 of religion is personal experience, and this experi- 
 ence is richer than any satisfaction of the intellect. 
 " Our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee," 
 cried Augustine, who had found neither the pleas- 
 ures of life nor philosophy satisfying. "Pectus 
 theologum facit," said a school of later divines, thus 
 giving their testimony that spiritual life is the true 
 fountain of profitable doctrine. 
 
 Still religion does not utter the last word on 
 things human and divine. Thought with its 
 " obstinate questionings " refuses quietly to merge 
 itself in faith. For problems are left confronting us 
 which do not admit of solution from the purely 
 religious point of view. The world of facts and the 
 world of values remain apart from one another, 
 and an inner bond between them has not been 
 established. That they fall within experience we 
 know, and we judge now from the one point of 
 
The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 9 1 
 
 view and again from the other. But how there is 
 continuity of development between fact and value, 
 so that both form valid and consistent aspects of the 
 organised whole of experience, is not clear. The 
 question thrusts itself upon us, and religion cannot 
 answer it. And further, we find the problem of 
 religious value complicated by the fact that religions 
 differ, and so do their scales of value. The religious 
 good, for example, as the Hindu conceives it, is 
 curiously unlike that of a European Christian, and 
 so the goods which are a means are likewise regarded 
 differently. With varying notions of value before 
 us, we have to ask ourselves, Is there any common 
 standard of appreciation ? Is there a normal human 
 nature whose value-experiences are regulative ? Or 
 can we by reflecting on the development of the 
 religious consciousness, and on the historic forms in 
 which it is embodied, bring to light an ideal of 
 religion by which we can determine the relative 
 worth of different religions ? Then there is another 
 and related problem which calls for discussion. 
 Eeligion, if an important aspect of culture, is still 
 only one aspect. How are we to conceive its rela- 
 tion to the other aspects ? By a study of the 
 respective processes we can try, as we have done, 
 to show how it relates itself to, and contrasts itself 
 with, Ethics and Science. In a like way one might 
 discuss the relation of religion to Art. The results 
 
92 The Natiiral Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 of such discussions cannot, however, be final, as our 
 point of view has been partial. While the study of 
 the parts should precede the whole, yet the full 
 meaning of the parts can only be determined in the 
 light of the whole. So it would seem that the 
 ultimate significance of religion and its function in 
 culture can only be appreciated by the mind which 
 sees the different aspects of experience together. 
 
 To deal fully with the problems raised by religion 
 we must, therefore, go beyond the purely religious 
 point of view. They can only be properly treated 
 by a Philosophy of Keligion. And the latter again 
 will be determined in its method and point of view 
 by general Philosophy. At present, however, it will 
 be widely admitted that Philosophy is not in a 
 position to synthesise and explain the whole of 
 experience by a universal principle. The matter to 
 be explained has become vast and complex, and 
 between the general principles with which Phil- 
 osophy works and the world of particular facts, there 
 is for us a breach of continuity. Similarly, between 
 the experience we designate 'mere fact' and the 
 higher spiritual experiences of the individual, a line 
 of immanent development has not been traced. But 
 Philosophy, if it cannot unify all experience, at least 
 helps us to understand the nature of the problem 
 and the conditions under which a solution may be 
 attempted. And it opens out general points of view 
 
TJu Natiiral Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 93 
 
 by which we can correct the onesidedness which 
 clings to special sciences and phases of culture. It 
 suggests, tentatively at all events, the standpoint 
 from which the universe may be best regarded as a 
 coherent whole. Hence the concluding word on the 
 relations of Science, Ethics, and Keligion falls to be 
 spoken by Philosophy. Although that word be not 
 ultimate, it represents the deepest insight of a 
 particular stage of human culture. 
 
 The Philosophy of Eeligion, it may be added, dis- 
 tinguishes itself from general Philosophy mainly by 
 its starting-point and method. The one begins with 
 the part and tries to show its meaning in the whole ; 
 the other seeks to show how the whole includes the 
 part. Philosophy deals with religion as an element 
 falling within the synthesis of experience. Philos- 
 ophy of Keligion begins with the study of religious 
 phenomena, in order to bring to light the essential 
 principles. Hence it proceeds to show how these 
 find a meaning and a place in the larger order of 
 things. This is its point of contact with general 
 Philosophy. But even though the latter fails to 
 offer any adequate interpretation of all experience, 
 the Philosophy of Keligion may still perform an 
 important office. It will discuss the origin and 
 development of the religious consciousness, the 
 psychological factors involved, as well as the func- 
 tion and value of religion in culture. And as the 
 
94 The Natural Sciences, Ethics, and Religion. 
 
 outcome of this it will try to unfold the deeper 
 meaning of religion. But the success of a Philos- 
 ophy of Eeligion in attacking the latter problem 
 must finally depend on the sufficiency of the point 
 of view offered by Philosophy in the larger sense. 
 
ESSAY III. 
 
 RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT: 
 ITS HISTOEY AND INTERPRETATION 
 
ESSAY III. 
 
 THE present-day student who devotes himself to 
 the History of Religion is oppressed by the wealth 
 of material which lies before him. The investiga- 
 tions of the last century, pursued in the dis- 
 passionate spirit which befits science, have made a 
 multitude of fresh facts available. Through the 
 intricate and varied mass of phenomena set before 
 him the student finds it no easy thing to thread 
 his way, and reach a point where he can see 
 general principles and state determinate con- 
 clusions. We might compare him to a man 
 wandering in a vast forest, now overshadowed by 
 great trees, now plunged into a rank undergrowth, 
 and doubtful whether he will ever see the wood 
 for the trees. The phenomena are so complex, and 
 higher and lower elements are so often inter- 
 mingled, that a logical arrangement of them must 
 to some extent be arbitrary. Hence to accept 
 Plato's rule and follow always the natural joints 
 
98 Religious Development : 
 
 in our divisions is, in the nature of the case, not 
 practicable. 1 Tiele, one of the most competent 
 workers in this field, finally contents himself with 
 a broad classification of religions into Natural and 
 Ethical. And even here there may be difference 
 of opinion as to where the line should fall. 
 
 This difficulty then faces us when we turn to 
 study the history of religion. The facts cannot 
 naturally be compressed within a scheme of logical 
 development. There is, indeed, a continuity in the 
 growth of a religion, and no phase of it but has a 
 meaning. Thought, however, is only one element in 
 the religious consciousness, and does not suffice to 
 control the evolution of religion by the principle 
 of intellectual consistency. If we are to speak 
 of the logic of religious evolution, it must be that 
 larger logic which embraces the working of human 
 needs, emotions, and desires. 
 
 The worker, then, in the field of religious pheno- 
 mena has a complicated material to deal with, and 
 he has to face the question of the method he will 
 follow. He may decide to proceed on purely 
 historic lines. He therefore endeavours above all 
 to ascertain the facts, to present them accurately 
 and group them as far as possible, but he avoids 
 any comprehensive explanation of them. Such is 
 the method adopted by Dr Tylor in his excellent 
 
 1 Phsedrus, 265, E. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 99 
 
 book on ' Primitive Culture/ and it has given it 
 a permanent value which does not belong to bolder 
 but more imaginative works in the same field. But 
 the careful sifting, arrangement, and presentation 
 of materials only lay the foundation for further 
 inquiry, and in themselves cannot satisfy the reason. 
 To know the facts is necessary, but we also want 
 to know the meaning of the facts : the on, in 
 Aristotelian phrase, must become the Sicm. Most 
 people will admit that it is only when we go 
 beyond merely empirical results, and discern law 
 and connexion behind things, that we can duly 
 appreciate their significance. The scientific spirit 
 always refuses to regard phenomena, whether 
 natural or historical, as isolated and independent. 
 And the scientific historian, if he knows his 
 business, tries to show how events and movements 
 connect themselves with what has gone before and 
 with what comes after. The student of religious 
 development cannot be indifferent to the pressure 
 of this demand ; for even the domain of faith 
 the region par excellence of human hopes 
 and fears is not, after all, a fairyland where any- 
 thing may be the result of anything. Still the 
 elucidation of the early history of religion offers 
 peculiar difficulties. It is not possible for the 
 modern inquirer to grasp fully the condition of 
 mind of primitive men. If it is difficult for the 
 
ioo Religious Development : 
 
 mature man to enter into the mental world of 
 childhood, it is harder for him to appreciate the 
 psychical condition of his remotest ancestors. He 
 is apt to forget this, and to interpret the savage 
 mind too much through his own. But in a matter 
 like this we cannot attain to more than probable, 
 it may sometimes be highly probable, inference. 
 And yet it is just an insight into the psychology 
 of the primitive mind which is most important 
 in interpreting the origin and growth of religious 
 belief. 
 
 Again, at particular points we find ourselves 
 hampered by evidence which lends itself to diverse 
 inferences. Hence it is sometimes difficult to 
 prevent subjective presuppositions from influenc- 
 ing the treatment of our materials. The cautious 
 student will now and then have to leave points 
 undecided in the interests of objective interpreta- 
 tion. And where more than one explanation is 
 possible he will be careful not to press a particular 
 theory further than the evidence warrants. 1 
 
 What is the proper method to follow, it may be 
 asked, in trying to understand the evolution of 
 religion ? The so-called a priori method does not 
 
 1 As an example of this error one might instance the excessive 
 importance attached to totemism by Mr Jevons, in his ' In- 
 troduction to the History of Eeligion,' or the ubiquitous part 
 played by the spirit of vegetation in Mr Frazer's 'Golden 
 Bough.' 
 
its History and Interpretation. 101 
 
 find much favour in these days when there is a 
 reaction against the bolder flights of speculation. 
 The wealth and variety of material discourage the 
 attempt to apply transcendental principles of ex- 
 planation in the sphere of religious history. Such 
 interpretations, when carried out, may be ingenious 
 and perhaps at points suggestive, but they are 
 artificial, and do not arise naturally out of a study 
 of the phenomena. Nor is there, it seems to me, 
 any gain in introducing scientific concepts, drawn 
 from the domain of biology, into the history of 
 religion for the purpose of interpretation. Terms 
 like ' natural selection ' and the ' survival of the 
 fittest,' when applied to the rise and fall of re- 
 ligions, import misleading associations from a lower 
 sphere into a higher. And they are useless as 
 explanations of the transition from one form of 
 religion to another. 
 
 Neither Metaphysics nor Science can help us 
 here. Our key must be a psychological one ; it 
 must lie in the inner nature of man, from which 
 religion everywhere proceeds. The mind of man, 
 thinking, feeling, and willing, is the constant factor 
 in religious history; and the stages and forms of 
 spiritual development must in their characteristic 
 features reflect the nature of the source from which 
 they issue. So it seems to me that Hoffding is 
 entirely in the right when he insists that the true 
 
IO2 Religious Development : 
 
 method by which to study the growth of religion 
 is the psychological-genetic method. 1 We shall be 
 strengthened in this conviction when we remember 
 that, while thought largely predominates in the 
 development of science and philosophy, it is by no 
 means so in religion. In the latter feeling and will 
 play as large a part as the intellect, and they make 
 their presence constantly felt in the evolution of 
 religious belief. For example, in trying to under- 
 stand the phenomena of religious progress and 
 reform, survival and decadence, we must connect 
 them, first of all, with the psychological elements 
 which are at work in human nature. In this way 
 we may find that what seems obscure and incon- 
 sistent in the evolution of religions becomes more 
 intelligible by being brought into relation with one 
 or other of the factors of the inner life. 
 
 Is the psychological interpretation of the religious 
 development a final one ? Some, no doubt, in these 
 days when a certain distrust of metaphysical specu- 
 lation is abroad, will be disposed to reply in the 
 affirmative. Yet it is plain that, if we cannot go 
 beyond the psychological meaning of religious ex- 
 perience, the whole question of the objective truth 
 and validity of that experience is left in abeyance. 
 The claim which every religion makes to be true 
 urges us beyond the limits of a psychological 
 
 1 Keligionsphilosophie, pp. 123, 124. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 103 
 
 inquiry. The final interpretation of religious evolu- 
 tion presupposes a determination of the idea of 
 religion as well as an explanation of the ultimate 
 meaning and ground of religious experience. Only 
 in this way, and not from a purely psychological 
 study, can we gain an objective standard of appre- 
 ciation in dealing with religions. This task, of 
 course, falls to a Philosophy of Keligion, and it may 
 be any solution we can give will be tentative and 
 provisional. Still, a Philosophy of Eeligion, if it 
 is to be true to its function, must deal with the 
 problem, and its treatment will only be effective if 
 it takes into consideration the psychological facts. 
 This will be the best guarantee that the theory it 
 offers is neither fanciful nor one-sided. Our aim in 
 the present essay is a limited one, and does not go 
 beyond an attempt to interpret psychologically the 
 development of religion. 
 
 Our inquiry may begin with the question of the 
 origin of religion. A certain ambiguity lurks in 
 the word origin. Like the Aristotelian apx 7 ?* it is 
 susceptible of two meanings : it can signify the 
 beginning or temporal starting-point of a series, 
 and likewise the cause or ground of the series 
 (OLLTLOV). The origin of religion in the former sense 
 would be a purely historical question. When and 
 how in the history of the world did religion first 
 appear? In the second case the inquiry turns on 
 
IO4 Religious Development : 
 
 the psychological causes which bring religion into 
 being. The first problem in the nature of the case 
 cannot be solved with the materials at our disposal ; 
 the vast prehistoric period is veiled in darkness, 
 and the conditions and character of the earliest 
 human life can only be inferred more or less 
 uncertainly. How or when religion first appeared 
 in the world is, therefore, a hopeless inquiry. This 
 much we may affirm, anything worthy to be called 
 religion could not have emerged among mankind 
 prior to the formation of some kind of social union, 
 and without a certain development of language. 
 The second problem offers a more fruitful field of 
 inquiry. It signifies that we investigate the 
 genetic - causal ground of religious development. 
 The question may be put thus, What elements in 
 the inner life of man, interacting with his outer 
 environment, beget that attitude of mind which is 
 termed religion ? The sources cannot be temporary 
 or accidental. For amid ceaseless change in out- 
 ward circumstances and social conditions religion 
 abides as an element in culture. Like art and 
 morals, it is a permanent expression of the human 
 spirit. What, then, are its roots in man's inner 
 nature ? We seek a psychological explanation, and 
 the ontological ground of the phenomenon is not in 
 question. 
 
 Before dealing with this matter, it might seem 
 
its History and Interpretation. 105 
 
 advisable to define religion. Such a definition, 
 however, to have any value would require to be 
 based on an adequate examination of the pheno- 
 mena. And while I admit we need some principle 
 of distinction between what is religious and what is 
 not, I believe the importance of a verbal definition 
 to be secondary. In point of fact I doubt whether, 
 in a case where the phenomena are so wide in 
 range and diverse in spiritual significance, any one 
 formula will perfectly embrace all the facts. 1 Such 
 a definition, for example, as is given by Menzies in 
 his 'Handbook on the History of Keligion,' " Eeligion 
 is the worship of unseen powers from a sense of 
 need," will work well enough ; but it is not always 
 equally applicable. Still, I do not see that we 
 should gain anything by going over the historic 
 types of religion to find, if possible, a common 
 feature which will serve as a label. And there is 
 a danger that if we proceed by eliminating the 
 specific features of particular religions in order to 
 come to some common quality which belongs 
 equally to all, the result may be a superficial 
 abstraction. 2 
 
 We are more likely to grasp the essence of religion 
 by showing the constant factors which generate it. 
 
 1 Cp. Caird, Evolution of Eeligion, vol. i. p. 39 ff. 
 
 2 It seems to me that Hoffding has fallen into this error when he 
 finds the essence of religion to be " faith in the persistence of value." 
 
1 06 Religious Development : 
 
 The significance of these factors changes with the 
 different phases and stages of the religious conscious- 
 ness, but they maintain an identity in their differ- 
 ences. Stated in their most general form these 
 factors are the subject and object : and religion 
 from religare, to bind denotes a bond between 
 them. Both terms of the relation must, however, 
 be qualified in a particular way ere we have that 
 determinate modification of consciousness called 
 piety, or religion. The object always comes before 
 the mind as real, as possessing power, and so able 
 to affect men for weal or woe. A powerless god 
 is a contradiction ; and so the fetish which is 
 judged to be impotent is discarded. Further, the 
 subject must be determined in a special way by the 
 object. The purely intellectual apprehension of the 
 object may be the attitude of mind in science or 
 philosophy, but it is not so in religion. Hence, 
 to say that religion arises from the Infinite involved 
 in consciousness is not enough. Though the fact be 
 true, there would not be religion without further 
 predisposing conditions in the subject. An epis- 
 temological analysis cannot do duty for the present- 
 ation of psychological motives. For religion a cer- 
 tain emotional tone is necessary the feeling of awe 
 and reverence. But religion as an affection of the 
 subject is not merely an impression received from 
 the object. The subject relates itself to the object, 
 
its History and Interpretation. 107 
 
 and the pressure of its inwardly felt needs prompts 
 it to do so. These needs the power or powers wor- 
 shipped are believed to be able to satisfy. Hence 
 the sense of trust and dependence which is involved 
 in the religious consciousness. 1 
 
 Moreover, the bond between worshipper and wor- 
 shipped is a practical one : it appeals to the will, and 
 is realised in the acts which constitute the cultus 
 and represent religious conduct. For " religion 
 means that action is bound, obliged, that there is 
 no choice between opposites, but supreme decided- 
 ness for the right without option." 2 
 
 The primacy of feeling in originating religion has 
 often been noted. "Primus in orbe fecit deos 
 timor." The frequently quoted saying of Statius, 
 however, unduly limits the emotional motives. Not 
 only fear but awe and wonder, gratitude and hope, 
 assist at the birth of faith. Nevertheless we admit 
 that fear, disappointment, anxiety, the feelings in 
 short which are most closely connected with the 
 limitations of the human lot, would be specially 
 active in urging man to find a more assured exist- 
 ence, by establishing a bond of union with higher 
 powers. Faith, even in its rudest form, implies a 
 
 1 Even on purely psychological grounds M. Arnold's definition of 
 religion as ' morality touched by emotion ' is defective. 
 
 2 Schelling, quoted by Wallace, 'Lectures on Natural Theology 
 and Ethics,' p. 59. 
 
io8 Religious Development : 
 
 certain discontent with what is : the sober present 
 never fully corresponds to human desire and long- 
 ing. Eeligion is the abiding witness to the truth 
 that the human self can never find a full satisfaction 
 through its environment. 
 
 But though great stress be laid on the urgency of 
 feeling in developing the religious consciousness, 
 feeling cannot stand alone as an explanation. For 
 religion is also belief and demands a certain activity 
 of mind. Feeling must be qualified by thought if it 
 is to be significant : and the crudest religious rela- 
 tionship must have an element of universality in it. 
 We cannot, as already remarked, conceive of a re- 
 ligion prior to the evolution of forms of speech ; and 
 language which implies some sort of social union 
 also implies some development of thought. The 
 worshipper must have an idea of the powers or 
 spirits which he worships, and this means at least a 
 rudimentary capacity to generalise and hold before 
 consciousness. H. Usener, in a suggestive investi- 
 gation into the names of the gods, deals with the 
 relation of language to primitive religion. 1 In his 
 view the earliest objects of worship are gods of the 
 moment (AugenblicJcsg otter), objects whom the de- 
 sire and stress of the instant have made divine. 
 By repetition a deity of this fugitive kind develops 
 into a specific, or departmental god, and is desig- 
 
 1 Die Gotternamen. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 109 
 
 nated adjectivally (the bright, the strong). Finally 
 a god gets a name, becomes personal, and rises from 
 the sensuous to the ideal sphere. Classes two and 
 three in Usener's theory, correspond generally to the 
 distinction between spiritism and polytheism. As 
 to the first class, I doubt whether it can fairly be 
 regarded as the primitive and original stage of the 
 religious consciousness. 1 To invoke a thing as divine 
 in the stress of the moment surely implies a con- 
 sciousness of the divine which is wider than the 
 particular experience. And a relation which is of 
 the moment merely does not seem to be in the full 
 sense religious. So far as Usener's AugenblicJcsgotter 
 represent a real phase in the evolution of religion, 
 they are best regarded as a degenerate outgrowth 
 of his second class : we shall find that much the same 
 relationship exists between fetishism and spiritism. 
 
 We conclude, then, that the psychological genesis 
 of religion cannot be traced back to the emotional 
 impulse of the moment. Feeling, we repeat, to be 
 religious, involves some activity of thought ; and 
 religion presupposes that man has already put some 
 sort of meaning into his experience of things. The 
 crude meaning which he has read into the world 
 about him serves as the basis on which he builds his 
 religious faith. The early view of things which lies 
 
 1 Usener cites as an illustration of an AugenblicJcsgott, ^Eschylus y 
 ' Septem contra Thebas,' 529, 530. 
 
1 1 o Religious Development : 
 
 behind religion is animism. In its origin animism 
 is not a conscious theory, but man's instinctive 
 projection of his own experience into the objects 
 around him. The savage reads into the chang- 
 ing phenomena of nature the same life and power 
 which he is conscious of within himself. Only thus 
 are growth, movement, change in nature, intelligible 
 to him. Winds and waters, clouds and stars, trees 
 and plants were instinctively regarded as possessing 
 a life like his own. Though we find it hard to 
 realise, in the lower culture the idea of the inani- 
 mate and the unconscious does not exist; it only 
 appears with the development of a greater capacity 
 to abstract and generalise. Originating in an in- 
 stinctive act of mind and not in deliberate reflexion, 
 animism came to represent the way in which primi- 
 tive man habitually thinks of the world around 
 him. It is explanation in its primeval form. Anim- 
 ism is universal as a stage of culture ; we see evid- 
 ence of it among all races, from the Esquimaux and 
 Finns in the north to the Australian aborigines in 
 the south. By itself, however, it is not religion, 
 as it is sometimes loosely termed. For in religion 
 there must be a distinctive relation of the subject 
 to an object, and this means an act of selection on 
 the part of the subject. From the nature of the 
 case worship must be directed to some things and 
 not to everything, and what determines choice ? 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 1 1 
 
 The answer clearly is that those objects which are 
 believed to stand in close relation to individual 
 desires and wants will be chosen. Primitive man 
 acted on the rule do ut des, and the things he rever- 
 enced were always those he supposed could affect 
 him for good or ill. It is the supervention of 
 human need on the animistic view of the world 
 which begets the religious bond : the determining 
 factor is within, not without. 1 
 
 The distinction between animism and spiritism 
 is not hard and fast. There is no historic evidence 
 of a stage of culture where the first existed but 
 not the second. The difference in name is justified 
 if we regard spiritism as the result of a process 
 which gave a higher form to the animistic con- 
 sciousness. Worship, we saw, implied selection, and 
 the attribution of a special power to the object 
 selected. If a man reverences a tree or a stone it 
 must be more than other trees and stones. It 
 possesses power for good or ill, but why ? The 
 answer is that there is a spirit in it. This inter- 
 pretation is psychologically intelligible, and is simply 
 man's inreading into things of a development in 
 his own experience. For the primitive mind the 
 
 1 To say that religion is " the solution of the contradiction between 
 outer determination and inner freedom " is no more than an abstract 
 way of putting the psychological facts. In reality it does not describe 
 these fully, and is of course no explanation of the ultimate meaning 
 of religion. 
 
1 1 2 Religious Development : 
 
 distinction between fact and fancy, hallucination 
 and real perception, the dream and the waking 
 consciousness, does not exist. All experiences are 
 alike objective. But the savage is confronted by 
 the fact that his fleshly body has not really fol- 
 lowed the course of his dreams. So a distinction 
 develops between the body and the soul, the latter 
 being conceived as a finer self, which usually dwells 
 within the body though it is not confined to it, 
 and sometimes wanders forth to strange adven- 
 tures. 1 The dream is true, but it is a history of 
 what happened to the soul in its absence from the 
 body. The distinction which primitive man drew 
 within his own experience he transferred to things 
 about him. Hence arose the conception of spirits 
 which reside in things but yet are not bound to 
 them. The saying attributed to Thales, rraivTa 
 7T\rjp-rj 0ea>v, is a reminiscence of the ubiquity of 
 spirits in early culture. In springs and rivers, 
 trees and groves, in fire and earth, they were 
 found, all possible objects of reverence, if not all 
 actually worshipped. All races have passed through 
 this stage of belief, though they have differed in 
 the degree of development they have given to it. 
 
 1 Cp. the remarks on the same point in the essay " On the Distinc- 
 tion between Inner and Outer Experience." The dream -soul or 
 shadow-self plays a great part in the lower culture. For the Homeric 
 view vid. Iliad, 23, 101-105. The Egyptian Ka, as is well known, 
 was made the subject of elaborate doctrines. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 1 3 
 
 Spiritism is closely interwoven with minor nature- 
 worship, to use the phrase of Keville. Places 
 frequented by spirits, the objects in which they 
 dwelt, became sacred. Hence there were holy wells 
 and groves, trees and mountains, for spirits haunted 
 them who could help or hurt men. The selection 
 of these sites was sometimes due to the need they 
 supplied : the spring quenched man's thirst, the 
 tree gave him fruit. At other times choice may 
 have been due to some fortuitous circumstance 
 which convinced the savage mind, not able to dis- 
 tinguish between conjunction and causality, that 
 spirits were present there. 1 When once selected, 
 sentiment gathered round a spot and tradition 
 handed down its sanctity. The mystery of age 
 by-and-by cast a spell on men's minds ; and holy 
 places have enjoyed a local reverence, and some- 
 times more than this, even when the faith which 
 created them has lost its power to move mankind. 
 The tree in the Arician grove, the oak of Dodona, 
 the 'green tree' which overshadowed the Canaan- 
 itish altars, and the sacred wells of our own land, 
 all tell the tale how the vestiges of an older cult 
 may linger on and touch the imagination of an 
 after-age. The careful inquirer who looks beneath 
 the surface of a later culture will always find 
 
 1 The application of the principle post hoc ergo propter hoc is the 
 source of many of the vagaries of early belief. 
 
 H 
 
H4 Religious Development : 
 
 traces of a minor nature-worship which once was 
 flourishing. 
 
 The question suggests itself, What is the relation 
 of the minor to the greater n ature- worship ? By 
 the latter is meant the worship, for example, of 
 heaven, sun and moon, dawn and thunder. Keville 
 has suggested that the latter is an extension or 
 outgrowth from the lesser nature- worship. 1 The 
 hypothesis is tempting, especially to those who 
 like to see orderly progress everywhere. For minor 
 nature-worship is circumscribed in its appeal and 
 conservative in its tendency. But the greater 
 nature-worship cannot be locally restricted in this 
 way : even the primitive barbarian would find it 
 hard to claim for his tribe a monopoly of the sun 
 or the heavens. Man in all his wanderings could 
 not pass away from them, and so the worship of 
 the larger phenomena of nature ultimately became, 
 as we shall see, a means of transition from the 
 tribal to a wider form of religious union. Never- 
 theless one cannot see why the one form of wor- 
 ship necessarily precedes the other ; and the savage 
 who is capable of reverencing an animal or a tree 
 should also be able to worship the sun or moon. 
 It would be hazardous to apply the maxim of Cicero 
 in this case, " Quod crebro videt non miratur " ; 
 
 1 Eeligiona des Penples non Civilians, vol. ii. p. 225. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 115 
 
 for the rolling thunder, the howling wind, the 
 changing moon must have forced themselves on 
 the notice and provoked the awe and wonder of 
 the humblest barbarian. It seems safer to conclude 
 that the greater nature-worship, if it did not develop 
 so rapidly, in its beginnings may be as early as the 
 minor nature- worship. 1 And both have their roots 
 in animism. 
 
 But the individual who has reached a satisfactory 
 conclusion about the facts we have been considering 
 is perplexed by a fresh group of religious phenomena 
 which, to appearance, seems rather remotely related 
 to the other group. I refer to Ancestor-worship, the 
 worship of the souls of the dead, and Totemism. 
 Between the members of this second class a connex- 
 ion may be shown, but the relation of the whole 
 class to the first class is less clear. Is the one group 
 earlier than the other, and, if so, which is the earlier ? 
 Are both independent growths, and, if not, is it 
 possible to show how the one developed out of the 
 other? Mr Herbert Spencer, it is well known, re- 
 gards ancestor - worship as primitive and nature- 
 worship as derivative " an aberrant form of ghost- 
 worship." 2 The theory has found few supporters, 
 
 1 This seems to me one of the points where our defective knowledge 
 of primitive psychical conditions makes it unsafe to dogmatise. 
 
 2 Ecclesiastical Institutions, 687. 
 
1 1 6 Religious Development : 
 
 and in itself it is neither natural nor probable. Yet 
 the cult of the Manes is undoubtedly very old, older 
 among the Aryans, according to Fustel de Coulanges, 
 than the cult of Indra or Zeus. 1 But though it 
 existed prior to the evolution of the greater gods, 
 we cannot say that it is the oldest form of spiritism. 
 The spirits man found in nature were a reflex of the 
 soul he had learned to recognise in himself; and it 
 seems at least likely that the spirits in the world 
 about him first provoked his worship, because they 
 were more readily associated with his daily wants 
 and fears. The psychological causes which special- 
 ised spiritism in the cult of souls are fairly clear. 
 Early man, we saw, had no notion of the inanimate, 
 and death appeared to him no more than a kind 
 of sleep in which the soul was still active. The 
 reappearance of the dead in dreams was a sure 
 token that they still haunted the earth in ghost- 
 like form. The soul was thought to linger near the 
 body it once inhabited, and like other spirits these 
 souls of the departed could powerfully affect the 
 living for good or evil. Of the doctrine of ghost- 
 souls Dr Tylor says, that " it extends through 
 barbarian life almost without a break, and survives 
 largely and deeply in the midst of civilisation." 
 The student of Greek and Koman religion, for 
 example, will find abundant evidence for it in the 
 
 1 La cit6 antique, p. 19. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 1 7 
 
 burial customs and other survivals in the historic 
 period. 1 
 
 It is to be inferred that the organised worship 
 of the spirits of ancestors is later than the primitive 
 cult of ghosts ; for it implies a growth in the con- 
 sciousness of the value of family and social ties. 
 The god who is an ancestor in claiming the worship 
 of his descendants rests his appeal on the sense of 
 a common bond and 'the duty of a common loyalty. 
 The cult of ancestral souls depends on family and 
 tribal solidarity. At this point emerges the link 
 of connexion between ancestor-worship and totem- 
 ism. In the lower stages of culture the tribal bond 
 could only be conceived in an external and material 
 way, as embodied in a thing. The totem is the 
 reflex of the sense of unity in clan or tribe. It is 
 true that totemism is not a purely religious phe- 
 nomenon. It is connected with exogamy, and is 
 associated with prohibitions which may not have 
 had a religious significance at first. But un- 
 doubtedly the totem the plant or animal which 
 was the ancestor of the tribe and embodied its life 
 came to be an object of religious reverence. The 
 
 1 Besides the work of F. de Coulanges, we may refer to E. Kohde's 
 book, 'Psyche.' The reader will find there the evidence for a 
 primitive cult of souls in Greece, drawn from burial customs recorded 
 in Homer and elsewhere. On Greek and Eoman tombs the inscrip- 
 tions are found 0eots \9ovio^ Dls Manibus. Cp. Eurip., Alcestis, 
 1003, 1004, vvv &' <JTI /AttKcupa Sat/xcov x^P* & '""OTVI', *v &* 801175. 
 
1 1 8 Religious Development : 
 
 selection of an ancestor from the animal or 
 vegetable kingdom will cease to surprise us when 
 we remember how vague is the conception of 
 causality in the savage, and how constantly he 
 reads his own consciousness into the things around 
 him. The point of interest is that the thought 
 of religion as represented in a physical bond 
 one of blood was a germ which in a favourable 
 soil might rise to a higher form and bring forth 
 ethical fruit. Totemism flourished most luxuriantly 
 among the Indians of North America, and we find 
 it in Australia and among the Arabs and other 
 Semites. That it was a widespread phenomenon 
 is undeniable ; that it was a phase through which 
 all religions passed, like spiritism, is not proved, and 
 can well be doubted. The reverence paid to animals, 
 as in Egypt, may be due to a primitive animal- 
 worship and not to totemism. And some religions, 
 like the Greek and Koman, show no clear trace of 
 it at all. Between the worship of the totem-ancestor 
 and the worship of the soul of the human ancestor 
 of the family or clan there is no clearly marked line 
 of separation. But the latter object has a more 
 ideal significance, and is better fitted to be a means 
 to a higher development of the religious conscious- 
 ness. The rude fear of the souls of the dead, out of 
 which ancestor- worship issues, is gradually leavened 
 by sentiments of loyalty and devotion. As the 
 
its History and Interpretation. 119 
 
 sense of the worth of social union deepens, so is the 
 religious relation elevated. In the Koman cult of 
 the forefathers of the family who in spirit watched 
 over its fortunes, representing to the later genera- 
 tions its best traditions and linking the present to 
 the remoter past by the bond of filial piety and 
 common interest, we realise the possibilities of 
 growth in this form of worship. 1 In China, the 
 land of ancestor- worship, piety takes as its main 
 form fidelity to the tie which links the children to 
 divine forefathers. As a general fact we note that 
 at the stage of ancestor- worship man's social relations 
 begin to play a part in colouring his religious con- 
 ceptions. The tie of family and of tribe is traced 
 back to the more enduring bond which links man 
 to his gods. 
 
 At this point it will be convenient to discuss 
 briefly the place of Fetishism and Magic in the 
 development of religion. Both have sometimes 
 been regarded as primitive, although the majority 
 of writers incline to treat them as later products 
 fetishism especially being reckoned a degeneration 
 from something higher. The only useful test we 
 can apply to settle the question is that of psycho- 
 logical consistency. A fetish may be any kind of 
 material object, a stone, shell, claw, or root. The 
 
 1 For the higher side of Roman family piety, see Pater's chapter on 
 " The Religion of Numa " in ' Marius the Epicurean.' 
 
1 20 Religious Development : 
 
 point is that it is conceived to be the abode of a 
 spirit, and so is credited with superhuman powers. 
 Belief in spirits, therefore, is a psychological condi- 
 tion presupposed by the selection of the fetish, and 
 fetish -worship is thus a special application of spirit- 
 ism. In harmony with this fetishism is rife where 
 spiritism is rampant. To the mind of the West 
 African negro the world teems with spirits, and 
 West Africa is the land where fetishism abounds. 
 Though fetishism is not primitive, it does not stand 
 on the line of higher religious development. For it 
 gives a form to the religious relationship which is 
 crude and arbitrary to a degree, and it offers no 
 possibilities of progress. Psychologically fetishism 
 is explicable by the natural desire of man to estab- 
 lish a closer connexion with the spirits by physical 
 means, in order to further his own ends. But its 
 tendency is to set up a kind of control over, instead 
 of dependence on, higher powers, which is not in 
 harmony with the religious idea. 1 
 
 A similar line of argument applies to magic. 
 Like fetishism it has its root in spiritism, and it has 
 flourished most where spiritism has prevailed greatly. 
 We may illustrate this from the Finns and the early 
 Sumerian inhabitants of Babylonia; and Koman and 
 
 1 Fetishism, it should be noted, is closely associated with idolatry, 
 but it exists in some of the lower races without it e.g., among the 
 Bushmen, the Esquimaux, and the Andaman Islanders. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 121 
 
 Chinese magic had their roots in the dominant 
 animism which gave a character even to the later 
 religious development of both peoples. The same 
 psychological motives are at work as in fetishism. 
 The magic word, rite, or formula can control the 
 spirits, and the sorcerer is venerated for his know- 
 ledge and power. Hence it is hard to believe that 
 Dr J. G. Frazer's view of magic, as set forth in the 
 second edition of ' The Golden Bough,' is correct. 
 He thinks that religion arose out of the failure of 
 magic, and in despair of its efficacy. 1 Dr Frazer, I 
 think, fails to recognise the universal character of 
 the psychological motives which led to religion. 
 There are plenty of examples to show that magic 
 and religion can easily exist together among the 
 same people. Nor is it likely that primitive peoples 
 came naturally to despair of magic. Faith in its 
 efficacy has often survived the strongest reasons 
 for disbelief. And even granted the existence of 
 such a despair, one does not see why the reaction 
 against magic should constantly issue in religion as 
 a kind of dernier ressort. Moreover, there is no 
 evidence that there are or have been low tribes who 
 practised magic but had not a religion ; and even 
 were it so, it might be argued that it was religion 
 which had died out while magic survived. 2 It is 
 
 1 Vol. i. p. 62 ff. 
 
 2 Vid. A. Lang, Magic and Eeligion, p. 47. 
 
1 2 2 Religious Development : 
 
 altogether much more intelligible to regard magic as 
 a lower outgrowth of the religious consciousness. 
 
 The forms of religion we have been considering 
 are all found at the tribal stage of culture. Do 
 these forms represent the full development of tribal 
 religion? There is a certain amount of evidence 
 that even on this low level of culture advances 
 have been made towards the conception of a 
 Supreme Being. As illustrating this we may point 
 to Torngarsuk, or Great Spirit, of the Greenlanders, 
 Atahocan, or Creator, of the Algonquin Indians, 
 Unkulunkulu, the Old Old One, of the Zulus. 
 Manitu, the Great Spirit of the North American 
 Indians generally, and Baiame, the Creator, of the 
 native Australian tribes, may also be noted. In 
 some cases we can see that ancestor-worship led to 
 the idea of a Great or First Ancestor, as among the 
 Zulus. In others the supremacy of the greater and 
 stronger over the smaller and weaker perhaps 
 suggested a highest god. This may have been so 
 where ancestors were not worshipped. And some- 
 times the great god of low tribes is plausibly ex- 
 plained by contact, direct or indirect, with Christian 
 ideas ; but it is not always so. The existence of 
 great gods amongst savage races has, curiously 
 enough, prompted Mr A. Lang to rehabilitate the 
 old hypothesis of a primitive theism. " Our con- 
 ception of God descends not from ghosts but from 
 
its History and Interpretation. 123 
 
 the Supreme Being of non- ancestor -worshipping 
 peoples." 1 Animism Mr Lang finds to be "full 
 of the seeds of degeneration " ; and it appears to 
 have ousted a purer religion by the attractions it 
 possessed for the natural man. 2 So in Guiana, we 
 are told, the ghost-cult has reduced the primitive 
 Father of all to a nominis umbra ; among the 
 Bantu tribes devotion to fetishes and ghosts has 
 brought the Supreme Being into neglect ; while 
 among the Zulus Unkulunkulu is a vanishing 
 greatness. Mr Lang's contributions to our know- 
 ledge of early culture and mythology have secured 
 a hearing for this venturesome hypothesis. But if 
 he is right the current notions of religious develop- 
 ment must be entirely revised ; animism and 
 spiritism cease to be primitive, and must be re- 
 garded as lapses from a higher and an earlier 
 religious level. On this theory it may be sufficient 
 to remark (1) The evidence that some low tribes 
 have risen to the idea of a Supreme Being, where 
 it is satisfactory, still only refers to a stage of 
 development which is comparatively recent, and 
 cannot be taken as a proof of what is primitive. 
 Though some modern savages have formed for 
 themselves an idea of a Supreme Being, this is no 
 proof that prehistoric man could have done so. (2) 
 Such great gods, where genuine native growths, are 
 
 1 Making of Religion, p. 191. 2 Ibid., pp. 264, 257. 
 
1 24 Religious Development : 
 
 explicable as later products of the savage mind. 
 They were superadded to the spirits, but were 
 never so firmly fixed in the traditions and senti- 
 ments of the people. (3) While the vestiges of a 
 primitive animism are to be found everywhere be- 
 hind the ]ater stages of religious development, the 
 same is by no means true of a primitive theism. 
 (4) The theory attributes too great psychical 
 capacity to primitive races, and ignores the force 
 and intelligibility of the psychological reasons 
 which produced animism. 
 
 We may now attempt to state briefly the general 
 features of religion at the tribal stage of its history. 
 Here, as elsewhere, the character of religion reflects 
 the inner consciousness of man, which again is con- 
 ditioned by his social relations. At this period self- 
 consciousness is relatively undeveloped, and the 
 spiritual life does not definitely contrast itself with 
 or oppose itself to the natural world. Imagination 
 is fettered to the domain of sense, and cannot 
 rise to the thought of an ideal bond or a super- 
 sensuous world. The gods belong to the realm of 
 nature : if not absolutely identified with material 
 objects, they are more or less closely bound up with 
 them. Personality is dormant, the individual is 
 merged in the tribe, and religious growth is uncon- 
 scious. The day of the prophet, reformer, and 
 spiritual teacher has not dawned. The rude pre- 
 
its History and Interpretation. 125 
 
 cursor of these is the sorcerer and the medicine-man. 
 As yet religious change is gradual and comes with- 
 out observation. In harmony with this, the private 
 belief of the individual, if he has any, is unim- 
 portant : each member of the tribe shares its religion 
 by taking part in the cult. His religion is deter- 
 mined for him by his membership of the family or 
 clan, and is part of his birth inheritance. A man 
 can only change his religion by breaking his social 
 bonds and undergoing initiation into an alien tribe 
 which " serves other gods." The spiritual not being 
 properly differentiated at this stage from the 
 natural, human needs are restricted to the material, 
 and desires do not rise above the sensuous. The 
 stress of life is embodied in the constant endeavour 
 to supply the wants of the body and to gain protec- 
 tion or deliverance from danger. For man has not 
 yet gained that material basis of existence which, in 
 giving him fuller security, also gives him leisure to 
 reflect : and as the circle of his needs is limited, so 
 is the scope of his religious interest. The colourless 
 uniformity which is manifest in tribal religions 
 is a consequence of the poverty of social life, 
 which cannot nourish a complex and developed 
 personality. 
 
 At first we are astonished at the recurrence of the 
 same beliefs and rites among the most distant tribes. 
 But we wonder less when we remember that men 
 
126 Religious Development : 
 
 everywhere have the same limited group of material 
 wants, and bring the same mental constitution to 
 bear on these wants. Monotony the lack of 
 distinctive character is a note of tribal religions. 
 Primitive religion certainly made for loyalty to the 
 tribal bond, yet in casting the shadow of a religious 
 sanction over tribal divisions, it hindered rather 
 than helped the advent of wider forms of social 
 union. The merging of tribes in the nation was not 
 due to the pressure of religious motives. 
 
 In correspondence with man's slender inner 
 development the gods of tribal religion are lacking 
 in content. The worshipper's poverty of character 
 is mirrored in the objects which he worships. The 
 host of spirits which encircled the savage were 
 differentiated one from another only in an external 
 way i.e., by local habitation and office. One dwells 
 in a tree and another in a spring, one is invoked that 
 he may do good, another is propitiated lest he work 
 harm : but otherwise their nature remains vague and 
 undefined. The god is not personified ; he does not 
 combine and body forth a group of determinate 
 qualities. In other words, the gods of tribal 
 religion do not rise to the level of personal 
 character. 1 Hence their relations to the worshipper 
 
 1 Usener thinks that up to the time of the division of the Indo- 
 Germanic peoples the Aryans did not have concrete personal gods. 
 ' Gotternamen,' p. 279. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 27 
 
 are material and external. To this the religious 
 rites bear witness. Sacrifice, for example, goes far 
 back in the history of the race. Yet in primitive 
 sacrifice the ethical element is quite undeveloped. 
 As is now generally agreed, sacrifice was originally 
 a common meal which the god shared with his 
 worshippers, and was a means of strengthening the 
 bond of union between them. 1 That bond was one 
 of life or blood. So with prayer ; it was only the 
 expression of personal desire for some tangible 
 good. A higher stage of religion could only come 
 with the development of a deeper personal con- 
 sciousness in man. For with the deepening of the 
 inner life there goes perforce a demand for more 
 elevated ideas of the gods and a recasting of the 
 religious relationship. The new wine must have 
 new bottles. We shall now try to indicate shortly 
 the significance of the transition from tribal to 
 national religion. 
 
 The process by which various clans and tribes are 
 fused into a nation is not one which we can actually 
 observe. In some cases, however, analysis of the 
 composite product enables us to form a fairly clear 
 idea of the different elements, and of the way 
 in which they were gradually combined in the 
 national whole. It may be confidently asserted 
 
 1 Vid. W. E. Smith's Religion of the Semites, p. 439. Cp. Iliad, 
 i. 451. 
 
128 Religious Development : 
 
 that no nation was ever formed by simple and 
 continuous expansion of a single stock or clan. 
 Tribal history is full of warfare and conquest. 
 The victory of the stronger tribe, the subjuga- 
 tion and final incorporation of the weaker, have 
 been the means by which the formation of larger 
 social organisations has been promoted. The 
 building up of the Roman people from a nucleus 
 of Italic clans is a case in point. As a nation 
 develops, the elements which have entered into 
 it consolidate ; men enjoy a larger security and 
 have less anxiety about the satisfaction of bodily 
 wants. Hence the way is opened out for the growth 
 of reflective consciousness, and to the outward ex- 
 pansion of the social system there corresponds an 
 inward deepening of the personal life. A new and 
 higher range of desires emerges ; and along with 
 this goes the demand for a definite advance in the 
 form of religion. The local aspects of the older 
 faiths are felt to be out of harmony with a wider 
 outlook and higher needs. The sacred spring and 
 tree and the spirit-haunted holy place do not lend 
 themselves to the reverence of a whole nation. Nor 
 can family ancestors, or the totem of the clan, both 
 resting on ties of blood, become truly national gods 
 without losing their significance. In Eome, for 
 instance, although Vesta, the deity of the domestic 
 hearth, became a state -goddess, the cult of the 
 
its History and Interpretation. 129 
 
 forefathers of the family was shared only by the 
 family. 1 
 
 The birth of a nation brings with it a new sense 
 of the value of order and uniformity which, in the 
 religious sphere, makes for a new organisation of 
 beliefs. Moreover, the interaction of the diverse 
 religious ideas which tribes bring with them into 
 the nation is favourable to religious development. 
 The need of harmonising discordant elements and 
 establishing some form of unity is a stimulus to 
 religious reflexion. 2 It might be thought that a 
 ruling race whose influence was dominant would 
 simply impose its religion on the lower peoples 
 under its sway. But only to a limited extent is 
 this possible. The conservative force of sentiment 
 and tradition always prevents one religion from 
 completely usurping the place of another. The 
 dominant and official cult never wholly ousts the 
 weaker one from its local strongholds, and in its 
 own development is modified by it. Behind Baby- 
 lonian polytheism lurk the magic and the spirits 
 of the old Sumerian inhabitants. The primitive 
 
 1 Perhaps in the general idea of kinship between men and gods we 
 may trace the survival, at a higher level of development, of tribal 
 notions of blood- relationship. But the important thing is that 
 tribal religion, in any of its forms, is not adequate to the national 
 consciousness. 
 
 2 It is worthy of note that races which have suffered from 
 isolation e.g., Finns and Lithuanians have remained long on the 
 lower levels of religious belief. 
 
 I 
 
1 30 Religious Development : 
 
 animal worship of the different nomes shows itself 
 beside the greater gods of the Egyptian Empire. 
 Hindu idolatry suggests how the religion of the 
 Aryan conquerors of India has been influenced 
 by the fetishism of the aborigines. Keligions 
 die hard. Indeed the tenacious life which pre- 
 serves a lower form of faith beside a higher 
 is a widespread phenomenon, well known to 
 all students of human culture. It can be illus- 
 trated from Christian as well as from pagan 
 lands. 
 
 Minor nature-worship, as we have seen, is local 
 and tribal in its character and tendency, while the 
 worship of the greater powers of nature lends 
 itself to the outlook of a larger religious faith. 
 The heavens and the sun, the thunder and the 
 storm, have a world - wide range and sphere of 
 operation. They were therefore fitted to be the 
 objects of a worship that transcended the local 
 cults of clan and tribe. We can understand, then, 
 how the national consciousness, reacting against 
 the narrow form of tribal religion, and stirred to 
 advance by the opposition of beliefs, intuitively 
 laid hold on the greater nature -worship, as that 
 side of older faith which could be expanded to 
 meet its larger wants. A personification of the 
 greater powers of nature lies behind the organised 
 
its History and Interpretation. 131 
 
 polytheism of the national religions. 1 The traces 
 of the nature - origin of many of the greater gods 
 have almost vanished, but sometimes we can detect 
 enough to suggest to us what the basis of the 
 later development has been. A few illustrations 
 will make this more plain. That the chief gods 
 of the Veda are personifications of natural powers 
 appears fairly certain. The drama of the storm 
 lies at the root of Indra, and Agni is primarily 
 fire. Yaruna is possibly the all -seeing heaven. 
 In China, Tian is the personification of the celestial 
 firmament. The Baalim, or Lords, of the Semites, 
 Merodach, god of Babylon, and the Egyptian Ka 
 are sun-gods. The Hellenic Zeus shows vestiges of 
 his connexion with the phenomena of the sky, with 
 rain, wind, and thunder 5croi>, w </>iXe Zet), /caret 
 
 The Roman Jupiter has likewise a primitive con- 
 nexion with the heaven "Sub frigido Jove" and 
 a philological kinship with his Hellenic counterpart. 
 
 These examples might be added to. But enough 
 has been said to justify the view we have taken of 
 the way in which the national consciousness raised 
 
 1 It is not, of course, meant that all the greater gods were 
 originally nature-powers. Brahma is an instance of a god origin- 
 ating in the cult. The Eoman religion furnishes examples of the 
 apotheosis of purely social functions. 
 
132 Religious Development : 
 
 tribal religion to a form adequate to its needs. 
 It did so by developing the greater nature- worship 
 into a polytheistic system. And in the process the 
 material basis of the gods was gradually outgrown. 
 The physical root of a deity is overlaid with higher 
 attributes, and resembles the rudimentary organs of 
 some animal type by which the biologist is able to 
 spell out its remoter lineage. This development 
 consists in giving content and personal definiteness 
 to the idea of a god ; and it is made possible by the 
 growth of higher social and ethical qualities within 
 the nation. The evolution of personal character 
 on earth gives a higher conception of the things 
 
 in heaven. 
 
 " Und wir verehren 
 Die Unsterblichen 
 Als waren sie Menschen, 
 Thaten im Grossen 
 Was der Beste im Kleinen 
 Thut oder mbchte." 
 
 The movement of the mind by which the gods 
 are clothed with all human virtues likewise invests 
 them with higher social meaning. They become 
 the ideal representatives and protectors of special 
 departments of the national life. The earthly state 
 has a counterpart in the commonwealth above. So 
 the interests, aspirations, and activities of a race, as 
 well as the different aspects of its social life, are 
 
its History and Interpretation. 133 
 
 represented in the gods of the State, and as the 
 moral consciousness grows they receive a corres- 
 pondingly higher moral character. To illustrate 
 this. In China, Tian, or Heaven, was identified 
 with the principle of order, and measure, and just 
 custom, and became the pattern of right for those 
 upon the earth. The Vedic Varuna was exalted to 
 the place of a highest ruler who saw all things, who 
 required piety in his worshippers, and to whom 
 confession of sins was made. The Greek Apollo 
 may have been originally a light-god, but he after- 
 wards became the deity who presided over the art 
 of healing, and wielded the gift of prophecy. 
 Athene, who was perhaps at first the lightning- 
 flash, became the goddess who was the pattern of 
 civic valour and good counsel, and whose interests 
 were bound up with the city which was called by 
 her name. Mars, an ancient Italian deity of spring 
 and fertility, cast his preserving care over agri- 
 culture, and became the god of war as well. The 
 Teutonic Odin, besides war, took understanding and 
 culture under his protection. The Egyptian Osiris, 
 who appears to have been originally the Sun after 
 his setting, was raised to be ruler of the realm 
 of departed spirits, the moral judge who weighs 
 in a balance the good and evil done in the flesh. 
 The ascription of diverse functions to the one god 
 was a consequence of the multiplication of human 
 
134 Religious Development : 
 
 interests and activities. Yet this was not the sole 
 reason. Sometimes the process was due to the 
 desire to introduce unity and coherence into the 
 local cults. In Egypt the sun-god Ka absorbed the 
 various local sun-gods, who became aspects of Ra. 
 In Greece we find a like movement working upon 
 more diverse materials. The Zeus e^SeVSptos of 
 Dodona was no doubt a primeval tree-spirit. The 
 Zeus cDuos was a god of the sea. The Zeus x#oi>ios 
 worshipped at Mount Ida and Crete at both of 
 which the grave of Zeus was shown was probably 
 an earth-spirit. These gods, really of diverse origin, 
 were harmonised by being designated as aspects of 
 Zeus. But this tendency to unify is not strictly 
 universal, and a society as it grows more complex 
 sometimes goes on adding to its deities. This was 
 markedly the case among the Komans, whose crowd 
 of 'little gods,' thinly veiled abstractions as they 
 were, was constantly being augmented. 1 But the 
 influences which make for unification commonly pre- 
 dominate at this stage. Political and social reasons 
 make it desirable that the citizens of a state should 
 not be divided in their religion. 
 
 The organisation of society suggests a supremacy 
 and headship among the gods. The reflective con- 
 sciousness seeks unity behind multiplicity, and looks 
 for a greater god on whom the lesser gods depend. 
 
 1 Vid. Aust, Die Eeligion der Komer, 19, 20. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 135 
 
 Moreover, this tendency of thought is supported by 
 the instinct which is in the worshipper to adore a 
 particular god as supreme in the act of reverence. 
 The suppliant craving the help of a god thinks 
 of that god for the time being as greatest and 
 strongest. The existence of the other gods is of 
 course in no sense denied. This attitude of the 
 religious mind has been termed Kathenotheism, and 
 Vedic worship is usually cited as an illustration of 
 it. Sayce finds the same movement of mind in the 
 religion of Egypt. 1 
 
 A further advance towards unity is revealed in 
 Henotheism, which means that while many gods 
 are admitted to exist, worship is reserved for one 
 only. The dividing line between these two phases 
 of belief is shadowy. In the latter case, however, 
 faith in the supremacy and uniqueness of the god 
 worshipped has become a permanent, not a passing, 
 attitude of mind. 
 
 The Hebrew Psalmist has been quoted as speaking 
 the language of Henotheism. " Thou, Lord, art high 
 above all the earth : Thou art exalted above all 
 gods" (Ps. xcvii. 9). And the well-known lines 
 of Xenophanes are henotheistic in spirit : 
 
 Efc #609 %v re Qeolai KOL avdpcoTroicrt, 
 
 Ol/T6 SeJLdS QvYToi<JlV OJLOUOS OVT 
 
 1 Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 93. 
 
1 36 Religious Development : 
 
 But there is another and a more developed aspect 
 of the tendency to unify. The reflective conscious- 
 ness discerns a divine element in all the gods, or 
 recognises some higher law immanent in the world 
 of gods. Such are the Greek To Belov and Motpa, 
 and the Hindu Rita. The further progress of this 
 movement leads to pantheism with its reduction of 
 the manifold world of divine forms to appearances 
 of the One. Whether this path is followed to its 
 logical conclusion or not depends on several condi- 
 tions. Capacity for speculative thought in a people 
 counts for something. Still more important is the 
 degree in which personality has been developed in 
 the social system. Where a high sense of person- 
 ality has been linked with imaginative power the 
 forms of divine beings are clearly defined, and their 
 character is concrete. In which case the gods resist 
 the process of fusion into a pantheistic whole. It 
 is also true that where the developed consciousness 
 of personality is accompanied by a keen perception 
 of moral values, pantheism does not find a favour- 
 able soil in which to grow. In India the Aryan con- 
 querors seem early to have lost the vigour and self- 
 assertion of their race. The Hindu was oppressed 
 by the burden of life in a tropical land rather 
 than quickened by its interests : personality was 
 slenderly developed, and the forms of the gods 
 remained vague and shadowy. Already in the 
 
its History and Interpretation. 137 
 
 Veda the process of blending has begun. "They 
 have styled him Indra, Mithra, Varuna, Agni, for 
 the poets have many names for the One." The 
 issue of this movement of thought is contained in 
 the words of the Vedanta, " He who knows the 
 highest Brahma becomes Brahma." Nay, such 
 knowledge is only the intuition of what always has 
 been, the Eternal One ! All else is illusion. In 
 ancient Egypt the official religion was construed by 
 the priesthood into a subtle pantheism, which, how- 
 ever, was more an esoteric product than was the 
 case in India. On the other hand, the Greek genius 
 had given such definite and artistic form to the 
 gods that the process of fusion could not be carried 
 out. Greek pantheism is a late philosophical pro- 
 duct which did not concern itself with the tradi- 
 tional religion. 
 
 In contrast to this line of development which 
 ends in the impasse of pantheism, another line leads 
 on to monotheism. The former movement is mainly 
 intellectual, in the latter moral forces play a part. 
 And if it be granted that piety and reverence are 
 rooted in the nature of man, then beyond question 
 monotheism is the higher and truer development : 
 it gives the more complete expression to the religious 
 principle. Historically the advance from polytheism 
 to monotheism has been by way of monarchism. 
 The term signifies that one out of a circle of gods is 
 
138 Religious Development : 
 
 represented as supreme and having sway over the 
 rest : the favoured god may have been the deity of 
 a conquering race, or of a city which has established 
 a rule over other cities. Such were Amon-Ea of 
 Thebes, and Merodach of Babylon. Among the 
 Greeks Zeus was raised to a kind of sovereignty 
 over the other gods, and so Homer depicts him. 1 
 He has a shadowy counterpart in the Jupiter Opti- 
 mus Maximus of the Eoman Capitol. 
 
 Monotheism is distinguished from monarchism 
 by its refusal to admit the existence of many gods, 
 and its affirmation that there is but one Glod. The 
 Psalmist speaks the language of monotheism when 
 he declares, "All the gods of the nations are idols, 
 but the Lord made the heavens " (Ps. xcvi. 5). On 
 a superficial view it might seem that the transition 
 from monarchism to monotheism was simple and 
 easy. But it is not so : the definite rejection of 
 the claim to existence of all gods save the One is 
 a step as difficult as it is important. Sentiment 
 and tradition as well as local associations do battle 
 for polytheism, and the conservative instincts, 
 which are so powerful in religion, protest against 
 the thought that the objects of a long-lived faith 
 are unreal. Even though discredited in the eyes of 
 those who know, the old gods find a refuge in 
 quiet places among the simple and unlearned. The 
 
 1 Vid. Iliad, viii. 1-35. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 139 
 
 strenuous warfare the Hebrew prophets had to 
 wage against the local Baalim is an illustration of 
 the tenacious life of polytheism. Indeed the estab- 
 lishment of a pure monotheism means a self- 
 conscious reaction against the religion of the past 
 which is more the outcome of moral and spiritual 
 than of intellectual forces. It argues a higher 
 spiritual development in individuals, in virtue of 
 which they realise keenly that their worship cannot 
 be divided among several but must be reserved for 
 the one object. When men are fully persuaded 
 that there is but the one God who is worthy of 
 their reverence and service, the figures of other 
 deities perforce grow shadowy and unreal ; and the 
 process ends in the explicit denial of their existence. 
 Monotheism, as distinguished from pantheism and 
 polytheism, rests on a developed sense of spiritual 
 personality. In harmony with this God is con- 
 ceived as a Being who transcends the world and 
 His worshippers, but enters into personal relations 
 with men. 
 
 On the higher levels of ethical religion the in- 
 fluence of individuals on the course of religious 
 development becomes very important. Even at 
 the stage of the nature-religions it must have been 
 true that the influence of some individuals on 
 religious development was greater than that of 
 others. Yet growth was, on the whole, uncon- 
 
140 Religious Development : 
 
 scious ; for the individual had not come to the 
 consciousness of an inner life of his own, in virtue 
 of which he could set his own experience in contrast 
 with that of his tribe, and initiate changes on his 
 own responsibility. Tribal society does not give 
 scope for personal centres of light and leading. 
 The development of self - consciousness through a 
 higher social organisation makes it possible for the 
 individual to become a determining factor in the 
 advance of religion. He recognises that what he 
 feels and thinks has a value. In virtue of their 
 inner experience the prophet and the religious 
 teacher purify religious ideas and hand them on 
 in a higher form. Seeing further than other men, 
 they give articulate voice to what the popular mind 
 is only dimly groping after. They become them- 
 selves personal influences, the sources of far-reaching 
 movements, the centres round which thought and 
 sentiment gather and from which they continue to 
 be inspired. And when the historic form has 
 grown faint, seen through a space of intervening 
 years, pious imagination adorns it with myth and 
 legend. 
 
 In a sense, humanity ; is right in magnifying the 
 great spiritual personalities of the past. For these 
 men are only explicable up to a point through 
 their environment. We can, for instance, always 
 find links which connect them and their message 
 
its History and Interpretation. 141 
 
 with what has gone before : so it cannot be said 
 that the principle of continuity between the past 
 and present is wholly set aside. On the other 
 hand, the attempt to show that they are simply 
 the products of their age and surroundings is never 
 perfectly convincing. 1 The spiritual genius is usu- 
 ally in advance of his time, and sometimes in 
 sharp opposition to its main tendency ; and he 
 gives a specific direction to religious progress 
 which is not explained by a general reference to 
 the " spirit of the age." The depth of individual 
 character and the uniqueness of personal experience 
 contribute a distinctive element to the riper stages 
 of religious development, an element which we 
 cannot bring entirely within the scope of racial 
 tendencies and social forces. The prophet of one 
 age would have been different in another, but this 
 does not prove that the age is the exhaustive 
 explanation of the man. Does Judaism, for 
 example, at the beginning of our era render 
 perfectly intelligible the life and teaching of 
 Christ? One cannot resist the conviction that 
 explanations of this kind are made to appear 
 sufficient by unwarrantably reading into the past 
 what is necessary for the purpose in hand. The 
 adequate discussion of the question would lead us, 
 however, beyond the domain of psychology. So 
 
 1 Vid. Tiele, Science of Religion, vol. i. p. 244 ff. 
 
142 Religious Development : 
 
 we simply note the fact that the deepening of the 
 religious self-consciousness and the advent of great 
 religious personalities render the development of 
 religion more complex, and so more difficult to 
 interpret as the outcome of general conditions. 
 We find an analogy to the spiritual genius rather 
 in the poet or creative artist than in the speculative 
 thinker. And it is easier to detect rational con- 
 tinuity in the evolution of philosophy than of 
 religion. 
 
 The stress which is laid on the inward and 
 spiritual side of religion is fruitful in conse- 
 quences. Worship of itself tends to stiffen into 
 a mechanical and external cult, where the opus 
 operatum counts for much and faith for very 
 little. The dominance of the ritual element makes 
 religion one-sided and provokes reaction. So on 
 the upper levels of Ethical Eeligion, with the 
 deepening of the subjective consciousness there 
 is a recoil from the tyranny of outward form ; 
 and the result is to bring into relief the religious 
 value of inner experience, and to emphasise the 
 need of faith. The new prominence of the sub- 
 jective factor helps to liberate religion from the 
 local and racial limitations which have hitherto 
 clung to it. For these appear alien and burden- 
 some as men come to recognise the value of piety 
 in the heart. The Hebrew prophets who found 
 
its History and Interpretation. 143 
 
 the law of God within, and preached the cleansing 
 of the heart and not of the garments, were the 
 pioneers of an ampler creed. Already the weight 
 of national exclusiveness was falling from them, 
 and with the images at their disposal they pro- 
 phesied the day of universal religion, the day 
 when all nations should come to Zion. The 
 message of Buddha is strangely unlike that of the 
 prophets of Israel. But he resembled them in 
 this, that, as against the claims of a legal ritual 
 and a material sacrifice, he declared the way of 
 salvation to be within. And the inner sanctuary 
 is a refuge for every man. "My redemption," 
 he said, "is a redemption for all." The inner 
 life receives a more positive value and a richer 
 content in the teaching of Christ. The worth 
 of a soul, he tells us, is greater than the world, 
 and "the pure in heart see God." And just 
 because faith is an inward possession, and the 
 only worship which avails is worship in "spirit 
 and in truth," the Christian religion rises in 
 principle above all local and national limitations 
 and becomes universal. That which is deepest 
 in religion is likewise that which is free to every 
 man spiritual life. " One is your Father," said 
 Christ to men, "and all ye are brethren," 
 brethren after the spirit though not after the 
 flesh. As an ethical and spiritual religion Christi- 
 
1 44 Religious Development : 
 
 anity is the ripest fruit of religious development 
 and the outcome of the fulness of the time. And 
 it is of necessity that the religion which lays the 
 deepest stress on individual faith and personal 
 character should at the same time be the most 
 universal. For faith is possible to all, and man 
 is " saved " by faith, not by the " works of the 
 law." In its historical evolution Christianity has 
 doubtless not always been true to its principles. 
 Alien ideas have affected its creed, and the religions 
 which it superseded have reacted upon it. Hence 
 the working out of its spiritual ideal has been 
 hampered by lower elements. But the fact re- 
 mains that Christianity has best enabled us to 
 realise the thought of religion as a universal as- 
 pect of life and the deepest possession of the soul. 
 Beyond doubt it is the maturest product of the 
 historic development of the religious consciousness. 
 We must now try to gather together and to 
 state more directly the conclusions which our 
 historic discussion suggests. At the outset some 
 general propositions will probably be agreed on. 
 It will be granted that there is a progress in 
 human culture, and religion as an element in 
 culture shares in that progress. It is for instance 
 clear that, as social life expands and grows more 
 highly organised, it is accompanied by a refine- 
 ment and elevation of religious conceptions. We 
 
its History and Interpretation. 145 
 
 cannot go so far as to say that the progress of 
 the one measures that of the other. But it is at 
 least true that religion cannot remain apart from 
 and unaffected by the development of the social 
 whole in which it exists. In the second place, it 
 is evident that the general trend of the religious 
 advance is from the material to the spiritual. 
 This upward movement is not so rapid in one 
 religion as in another, nor is it uniform through 
 different stages of the same religion : in some 
 cases it may not exist at all. But that there is, 
 on the whole, a progress of the kind mentioned 
 will not be denied. The religious bond, for ex- 
 ample, in early races one of blood, is gradually 
 converted into one of inner character. And, in 
 the third place, the direction which religious pro- 
 gress takes is towards universality. The history 
 of religion discloses a movement from tribal 
 through national to universal religion. The sub- 
 jective factor in the religious consciousness, un- 
 important to begin with, becomes more and more 
 important. Universal religion demands faith, 
 which means an act of personal freedom, and it 
 calls for piety, which is the expression of inward 
 character. And there are no barriers to ' salvation ' 
 but those which a man raises within himself. 
 
 It being granted that there is a development 
 of religion such as we have indicated, we must 
 
 K 
 
146 Religious Development : 
 
 now deal more directly with its interpretation. 
 In what sense can we regard the higher and more 
 complete form of religion as growing out of the 
 ruder and earlier? That the later stage of a 
 religion is related to the earlier, and cannot be 
 understood apart from it, is of course clear. But 
 can we speak of the religious idea as a germ which 
 develops by an immanent law the blossom and 
 fruit which were somehow in it from the begin- 
 ning? The analogy of an organism is a tempting 
 if not always a safe one, and it has been much 
 used as a key to intellectual and spiritual progress. 
 In the case of organic growth we may try to 
 explain the process to ourselves by supposing that 
 the typical line which that growth follows is due 
 to the fact that the fully developed whole is 
 somehow implicitly present in the beginning. 
 How we are to think of this presence is not at 
 all clear, and the explanation does not amount to 
 much. 1 At the same time, I do not see that we 
 can deny that organic growth is a movement to 
 an end ; which end, or developed result, appears 
 to determine the successive phases of growth, so 
 that the development follows a characteristic order. 
 Interaction of organism with environment is, of 
 
 1 A thoughtful criticism of the idea of development will be found 
 in the lectures on ' The Development of Modern Philosophy ' by the 
 late Prof. Adamson. Vid. vol. ii. p. 185 ff. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 47 
 
 course, necessary as a means, but the typical form 
 is not created by the environment. The living 
 germ means a determinate development and noth- 
 ing else. Now I doubt if we can speak of the 
 evolution of religion as a development in the fore- 
 going sense. In organic growth the earlier stages 
 are transmuted and taken up into the later. They 
 cease to exist for themselves, and are only repre- 
 sented in the higher product. But in the history 
 of religion we find that a lower stage survives 
 alongside and refuses to be merged in the higher. 
 This phenomenon of survival is too frequent to be 
 treated as sporadic. And so we have religions 
 in which the growth of higher beliefs has been 
 hampered, and it may be arrested, by the pressure 
 of older beliefs and practices. 1 
 
 The analogy is defective at another point. I do 
 not think we can assign a distinct germinal basis 
 to religion such as the analogy of an organism 
 requires. Eeligion is not a fact by itself: it is a 
 psychological state, and it only exists as an aspect 
 of the greater whole of self-conscious life. Hence, 
 as its vitality and significance depend on the larger 
 content of which it is an element, we cannot regard 
 it as possessing a principle of growth in abstraction 
 
 1 An example of this is the Roman religion, which never fairly 
 succeeded in transmuting its primitive basis in animism into a higher 
 system of belief. 
 
148 Religious Development : 
 
 from the unity to which it belongs. Eeligion grows 
 with the growth of the mind. The other aspects of 
 consciousness are essentially involved in the growth 
 of the religious consciousness. We cannot correctly 
 speak of the religious consciousness of itself unfold- 
 ing by an immanent law the wealth implicit in it 
 from the beginning. To put the same truth from 
 another point of view, the social, scientific, and 
 ethical culture of a race all help to determine the 
 character of its religion. 
 
 It will perhaps be said that the other aspects of 
 consciousness play the part of a spiritual environ- 
 ment to the religious idea, and are only necessary as 
 a means to its unfolding. We cannot, however, 
 make a valid distinction of active and passive in 
 consciousness like this. And the facts of religious 
 evolution do not bear out the view that these 
 elements, which are described as a means, have no 
 share in determining the characteristic form which 
 religion takes at a given stage. 
 
 If we say, then, that there is a continuity in re- 
 ligious development, and different religions have a 
 common character, in what sense do we understand 
 the statement ? Eeligions have a common character 
 inasmuch as they are the expressions of the one 
 human mind seeking satisfaction for needs which, 
 broadly speaking, are the same. In our analysis of 
 the religious consciousness we saw that it had a sub- 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 49 
 
 jective and an objective aspect, on the one side the 
 sense of need, incompleteness, and dependence, and 
 on the other the conception of an object which can 
 satisfy the subject. This is the generic form of the 
 religious idea and the bond of unity between the 
 different types of religion. These types are diverse, 
 but they cannot fall outside the general notion and 
 yet remain religions. The continuity of religious 
 development has, as its primary condition, therefore, 
 the unity of principle which is realised in all the 
 phases of that development. The higher religions 
 embody the idea in a larger and worthier form than 
 the lower : they are the same spiritual consciousness 
 on a further stage of its upward journey. Between 
 the new and the older phase of religious develop- 
 ment there is no absolute break, just as there is 
 none in the individual between the religion of child- 
 hood, youth, and manhood. As the content of the 
 religious consciousness deepens, it reacts on the 
 form and strives to bring it into harmony with 
 itself. But the new is ever reached by modification 
 of the old, and it is not to be understood apart 
 from it. Even where the principle of continuity is 
 most threatened viz., in the case of those religions 
 which trace their distinctive character to the spiritual 
 genius of great teachers seeds of the new faith will 
 be found in the past. And the greatest of religious 
 teachers is under the necessity of appealing to men 
 
1 50 Religious Development : 
 
 through the ideas and forms to which they are 
 accustomed. He can never inaugurate a new faith 
 which is devoid of relation to the old, although at 
 the same time we contend that personal initiative, 
 resting on freedom, contributes an element to de- 
 velopment which is more than the past can explain. 1 
 
 Another question suggests itself. Have all specific 
 religions played a part in the general development 
 of religion ? Many of these withered and died. 
 Others, after a period of development appeared to 
 lose vitality, and hardened down into a form which 
 resisted further progress. Some vanished away when 
 the culture out of which they arose broke up, and 
 no one could say in what definite respect they 
 have influenced the religion of posterity. As we 
 look back on the extinct types of faith they seem 
 futile creations of the human spirit, passing products 
 of a passing age, their meaning and value perishing 
 with them. 
 
 Yet it is possible to press the point of view too 
 far. It would be absurd, for example, to assume 
 that the various religions are isolated growths which 
 run their course in mutual independence. Direct 
 interaction can often be proved, and must have 
 existed in many cases where clear evidence has not 
 been discovered. The accumulation of fresh historic 
 
 1 This takes us back to the old problem of the reality of freedom, 
 a matter which has been referred to in the previous essay. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 151 
 
 materials has already established points of contact 
 not suspected before. We shall more readily admit 
 the possibility of one religion influencing another 
 when we keep in mind that religion is intimately 
 related to the culture of a people, and is, perhaps, 
 its most characteristic expression. An older civilisa- 
 tion breaks up and is followed by a younger, and a 
 weaker is dominated by a stronger. Yet the earlier 
 never vanishes utterly : surrounding civilisations 
 retain traces of its influence, and in more ways 
 than can be defined and measured it affects and 
 modifies the civilisations which succeed it. Now it 
 cannot be supposed that religion is excluded from 
 this general influence, for it is a characteristic ex- 
 pression of the culture to which it belongs. Never- 
 theless, it must often be impossible to weigh and 
 appreciate the effect of an element which is so 
 interwoven with the whole. 
 
 The general conclusion that, in so far as there 
 is a continuity in culture, there must also be a 
 continuity in the various historic manifestations of 
 religion, may seem meagre and indefinite. The 
 speculative thinker will try, perhaps, to find some 
 indwelling principle in religion, which realises itself 
 in the historic religions and determines their place 
 and sequence. But there are great obstacles to the 
 working out of this conception. The solidarity of 
 humanity is still imperfect, and it was far more 
 
152 Religious Development : 
 
 imperfect in primitive times. Consequently, though 
 certain sections of the race have developed, others 
 have been nearly stationary. The latter is especially 
 true of tribes which have suffered from isolation and 
 hard external conditions. Eeligious development 
 has been conspicuous at favoured points rather than 
 over the whole area of the race. Then while there 
 is a connexion between certain centres of develop- 
 ment, between the more distant points it becomes 
 exceedingly vague. Thus we can show no valid 
 reason for asserting that the development of religion, 
 say in China, had a relation to and significance for 
 the development of religion in Egypt. Humanity 
 is not an organic whole, so that each religion must 
 have a determinate place and value in the whole. 
 Hence I think we must abandon the attempt to 
 interpret the different religions by assigning them 
 a place in a general scheme of development. 
 
 We shall be confirmed in this view by the 
 examination of a very able and ingenious effort in 
 this direction. I refer to the conception set forth 
 by Dr Caird in his lectures on 'The Evolution of 
 Eeligion.' He finds the key to the problem in a 
 general analysis of consciousness. This yields an 
 objective and a subjective factor, while the Absolute 
 unites and harmonises them. Logically the Absolute 
 is presupposed in the simplest act of knowledge, but 
 as a temporal process mind advances by a movement 
 
its History and Interpretation. 153 
 
 from objective to subjective consciousness, and finds 
 its goal in the Absolute consciousness. Here we 
 have the general form of religious development. 
 We need not pause to urge the objection that the 
 specific nature of religion is assumed, not explained, 
 by an epistemological analysis of this kind. Dr 
 Caird then goes on to show that in the earliest 
 phase of religion God is represented under the 
 form of an object among other objects. Against 
 this defective form the mind ultimately reacts and 
 passes over into the second stage, that of subjective 
 religion, where God takes the higher form of the 
 subject, and is conceived as mainly dwelling in and 
 speaking to the soul of the individual. The final 
 stage of the movement attains to adequacy of form 
 in the idea of God as Universal Spirit, immanent 
 in all objects and persons. The proper develop- 
 ment of the final stage will, we are told, be the 
 work of the future. 
 
 That primitive religion is objective in the sense 
 indicated will be admitted. If the writer meant 
 no more by the second stage than ethical religion, 
 as Tiele suggests, 1 we should agree that the trend 
 of development is in this direction. It seems clear, 
 however, the meaning is that there is a dialectic 
 movement which by way of reaction posits God, 
 not in the world of objects, but dwelling in and 
 
 1 Elements of the Science of Religion, vol. i. p. 61. 
 
1 54 Religious Development : 
 
 speaking through the inner life of the subject. 
 But it is conceded that only nations which have 
 attained a certain stage of civilisation display this 
 phenomenon. 1 We would like to know more pre- 
 cisely what the stage is, and whether the only 
 test of its being reached is the manifestation of 
 the movement in question. Civilisations have 
 lasted long and still have not entered on the phase 
 of subjective religion. And religions which, in their 
 later stage at all events, contain ethical elements, 
 such as the Eoman, Egyptian, and Chinese, do not 
 reveal this kind of movement. The illustrations 
 which Dr Caird gives of his principle are not quite 
 convincing. Buddhism may be called a subjective 
 religion, but it is so because it sacrifices the idea 
 of God altogether and substitutes for it an inner 
 principle of redemption. The Israelitish prophets 
 did lay stress on the divine ]aw written on the 
 heart and the divine voice speaking to the soul. 
 But it is an exaggeration to call their religion 
 subjective : they always believed in God as an 
 objective and righteous Power. The prophets 
 simply purified and gave new ethical content to 
 the national religion. 2 Dr Caird's formula is a 
 
 1 Evolution of Religion, vol. ii. p. 4. 
 
 2 Another of Dr Caird's examples is Stoicism. But Stoic subject- 
 ivity represents a philosophical and political movement. We do not 
 construe it as a reaction against the defective form of earlier Greek 
 religion. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 155 
 
 broad and flexible one, but for all that it does 
 not find a simple and natural verification in the 
 history of religion. Whether the Absolute Eeligion, 
 as he conceives it, will complete the process and 
 satisfy the modern consciousness is far from clear. 
 If the practical religion of mankind depended on 
 metaphysics, and certain metaphysical principles 
 were generally accepted, it might be so. But 
 these are not conditions likely to be fulfilled. Dr 
 Caird on the whole fails to convince us that he 
 has formulated the immanent law of religious de- 
 velopment. There seems to be no inherent neces- 
 sity that, when religious evolution takes place, it 
 should proceed exactly in this way. There is not 
 a general stage of subjective religion which cor- 
 responds to the nature - religions. Nor is there 
 warrant for the view that any particular religion 
 can reach a higher development only by passing 
 through the subjective stage. 
 
 The effort then to interpret the evolution of 
 religions through universal categories like subject 
 and object is not, I think, helpful. But though 
 we reject this method as inadequate there is 
 another way open to us. We can at least try to 
 set forth clearly the psychological principles in- 
 volved. Indeed this seems to be a necessary 
 preparation for any valid conclusions on the sub- 
 ject. The study of religion has suffered much 
 
156 Religious Development : 
 
 from the neglect of psychology, and the defect is 
 only beginning to be remedied. 
 
 As we have remarked more than once, the mind 
 or spirit as a whole is active in deepening the con- 
 tent of the religious consciousness, which in turn 
 strives to give a more adequate form to the religious 
 principle. And the law which seems to govern the 
 spirit's operation is the necessity under which it 
 lies of being in unity or harmony with itself. This 
 has been enunciated by Tiele as the law of the unity 
 of the mind. 1 So stated it is a general, not a 
 specifically religious, principle. Still this is not a 
 decisive objection ; for, as we hold proved, the self- 
 conscious mind works in religious development and 
 not the religious consciousness in abstraction from 
 the rest. 
 
 In all consciousness, and so in the religious con- 
 sciousness, three factors thought, feeling, and will 
 are present. One of them may be dominant at 
 a given time, but the others are never entirely 
 absent. In the degree that each element gets its 
 due, and is in concord with the rest, we experience 
 inner harmony and satisfaction. A belief, for 
 example, as my belief, must be pervaded by a 
 certain emotional tone ; it must be something on 
 which I can act, and only as acted on is it vigorous ; 
 and finally, it must fit into and cohere with my 
 1 Op. tit., vol. i. p. 232. 
 
f UN1VERS1T 
 
 OF 
 
 its History and Interpretation. 157 
 
 system of ideas. Where there is opposition between 
 the elements, where thought, for instance, is at dis- 
 cord with feeling, the mind is urged to gain a 
 content in which they will be harmonised. The 
 operation of this law of unity is distinctly to be 
 recognised in the evolution of religion. It is the 
 pressure of this immanent need which, in one form 
 or another, brings about transition and change in 
 the religious consciousness. To use a figure, the 
 emphasis on one element at the expense of another 
 creates an instability which precipitates movement. 
 The satisfaction and completion which the religious 
 spirit seeks through the divine object of its faith 
 must be a life in which feeling, intellect, and 
 practical endeavour are at one with each other. 
 And while this is an ideal which in finite and 
 temporal experience is never fully realised, yet 
 man's incapacity to be satisfied with less impels 
 him to transcend each partial satisfaction and seek 
 a spiritual life fuller and more harmonious. In the 
 interplay of these three elements, in the reaction 
 against the excessive predominance of any one of 
 them, in the persistent effort towards harmony, I 
 think we find a psychological explanation of some 
 of the characteristic features of religious evolution. 
 At the risk of some repetition I will try briefly to 
 justify and illustrate this statement ere I bring this 
 essay to a close. 
 
158 Religious Development : 
 
 The predominance of feeling in the form of 
 emotion at the origin and primitive stage of 
 religion has been noted. Emotion and not in- 
 tellectual interest engenders religious belief. But 
 belief, however crude, exists as a starting-point for 
 action, and can only maintain itself in and through 
 the exercise of will. Hence religious belief takes 
 form as a religious bond which is realised in con- 
 duct, and a cultus grows up with a ritual, fixed 
 observances, and definite obligations. These be- 
 come the nucleus around which religious sentiment 
 gathers and by which it is in turn fostered. Thought 
 is too slenderly developed to play an aggressive 
 part. The savage's ideas of the world form no 
 coherent system, and he is not pressed to revise 
 his religious creed by any urgent demand of reason. 
 Beliefs are modified simply through practical needs 
 and interests, and the only test of religious loyalty 
 is the performance of the prescribed acts. The 
 emotional feeling which associates itself with ritual 
 performance grows into a fixed sentiment which 
 resists change. The meagre power of development 
 revealed by tribal religion is due to the poverty of 
 social and intellectual life and the consequent lack 
 of diversity within the mind calling for recon- 
 ciliation by progress. The cohesive force of senti- 
 ment giving support to existing religious practice 
 has no strong disintegrating influences to withstand. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 159 
 
 The importance of those social changes by which 
 the nation takes the place of the tribe, and the 
 accompanying expansion and deepening of self- 
 consciousness, have been referred to. The content 
 of the self has been enriched by a new range of 
 practical ends and interests, and now finds itself 
 out of harmony with the older and narrower form 
 of the religious consciousness. National religion 
 is the outcome of man's endeavour to bring the 
 traditional religion into concord with the deepened 
 and enlarged life of the self. At this stage thought 
 attains a greater influence in the evolution of reli- 
 gion, and coherency of ideas is recognised to be an 
 element of the spirit's inner satisfaction. In the 
 first instance, the endeavour of thought is to give 
 a kind of connexion and explanation to religious 
 beliefs. Myths and theogonies indicate the rise of 
 this tendency, which indeed goes back to the stage 
 of tribal religion. Afterwards the gods are grouped 
 and arranged according to eminence and function. 
 When a religion has struck deep roots in the social 
 life, and an influential cultus has grown up, thought 
 proceeds to elaborate on a larger scale the meaning 
 or reason for what is done : the result is religious 
 doctrine. Theology represents the effort to set 
 forth the truths implied in a religion in a connected 
 body of propositions ; it will give a rational and 
 systematic form to belief, and so satisfy the mind's 
 
1 60 Religious Development : 
 
 desire for an intelligent presentation of its faith. 
 Thought, however, as it grows more conscious of 
 its power, inclines to free itself from bondage to 
 the religious interest and to follow its own course 
 in independence. An intellectual movement which 
 thus begins within the sphere of religion, but 
 gradually enters on an independent path, becomes 
 in the end one-sided. In its anxiety to minister 
 to the intellect it neglects the other religious needs. 
 The outcome may be Eationalism, in its narrower 
 sense, or Pantheism, according as the analytic or 
 synthetic tendency prevails. In either case, the 
 Weltanschauung which has been reached is in- 
 compatible with the adequate satisfaction of the 
 spiritual self. And in the result we have a phase 
 of religious belief, which, in exercising a purely 
 intellectual appeal to men, fails to minister to other 
 vital needs, and is superseded in the interests of a 
 fuller satisfaction of the self. 
 
 But there is another aspect to the influence of 
 thought on religion. In the foregoing case reason 
 began by working from within the religious sphere, 
 in this case it approaches it critically from without. 
 At the higher stages of culture thought, in its own 
 interest, investigates the nature of the world and 
 man, and the outcome of this is science and phil- 
 osophy. It is perhaps inevitable that the scientific 
 and religious view of the world, developed as they 
 
its History and Interpretation. 1 6 1 
 
 have been by different interests and in independ- 
 ence, should fail to coincide with one another. 
 This discord begets controversy, and the religious 
 interpretation of things is subjected to the criticism 
 of thought at various points. But a lasting dualism 
 between the two interpretations is impossible. For 
 both science and religion fall within the unity of 
 self-consciousness, and division between them cannot 
 be accepted as permanent. The necessary endeavour 
 of the mind to establish harmony within itself 
 affects religious ideas which undergo modification 
 and development. The resisting forces of senti- 
 ment and habit hamper and retard the process, 
 and changes are usually slow ; but they are not the 
 less real though they come gradually. 
 
 The conservative function of feeling in religious 
 evolution is not its only one. As an indispensable 
 element of the religious consciousness it asserts 
 itself against a one-sided intellectualism. Thought 
 never coalesces with its object : the element of 
 difference is essential to its movement. And this 
 movement seems to have no end; the conclusion 
 arrived at becomes only a starting-point for fresh 
 processes. To the soul hungering for union with 
 the object of its faith, the labour of thought seems 
 tedious and external as it is unsatisfying. Theo- 
 logical and philosophical constructions of God 
 appear by their method to cast a veil over the 
 
 L 
 
1 62 Religious Development : 
 
 spiritual substance of religion. The emotional 
 nature cries for bread and reason offers a stone. 
 Mysticism is the outcome of this craving ; and in 
 exalted or ecstatic emotion the sense of estrange- 
 ment is done away and the worshipper feels himself 
 at one with the Being he adores. But the goal is 
 not really reached by a route so easy, and Mysticism 
 in turn proves no abiding refuge to the spiritual 
 seeker. Its neglect of practical effort and its 
 disparagement of thought render it a partial satis- 
 faction at the best. The spirit asserts its claim to 
 a harmony of all its elements ; and as Mysticism 
 cannot respond to this demand, man cannot rest in 
 it, and moves forward in quest of an ampler self- 
 fulfilment. Here as elsewhere reaction is the result 
 of one-sided development, and leads in turn to new 
 development. 
 
 All that we can claim for the psychological in- 
 terpretation of religious development is that it 
 casts a certain amount of light on a very compli- 
 cated process. The explanation it yields is partial, 
 and the objective validity of the ideas involved is 
 not determined. But our only hope of keeping in 
 touch with the facts of religious evolution and of 
 intelligently grasping them is to interpret them 
 psychologically in the first instance i.e., in the 
 light of the working of the human mind. We are 
 under no obligation to fit the facts into intellectual 
 
its History and Interpretation. 163 
 
 categories, or to make them square with abstract 
 principles, when we follow this method. For the 
 student of religion like other people is tempted 
 to neglect facts which are inconvenient, and he 
 is likewise inclined to use terms which imply 
 an undue simplification. The latter fault, I fear, 
 cannot be altogether avoided. We have, for ex- 
 ample, been constrained to speak of the " religious 
 consciousness " as it exists at a particular epoch or 
 stage of development. Yet how hard it is, among 
 the higher races at all events, to give an exact 
 meaning to the phrase ! Its connotation varies as 
 you pass from one stratum of society to another. 
 The Brahminism of the cultured Hindu is very 
 different from that of the lowly ryot, and the 
 Christianity of the speculative theologian is not 
 the same as that of the day-labourer. Accordingly, 
 when we speak of the " religious consciousness," at 
 a particular stage of a race's history, feeling acutely 
 the need of religious reform and development, in 
 strictness the judgment applies only to the more 
 enlightened members of society. The dull and 
 ignorant hardly experience the need at all. And 
 so development, when it takes place, is seldom or 
 never a simultaneous movement of all elements in 
 the social whole : only very slowly does the in- 
 fluence of new ideas filter down to the many. The 
 "religious consciousness" of a people, if we are to 
 
1 64 Religious Development : 
 
 use the phrase, is thus a composite thing. And 
 when we speak of it developing, it must be with 
 the proviso that development is always partial and 
 elements remain which are not fused in the process. 
 Even when a high form of religion has long been 
 the official creed of a country, here and there frag- 
 ments of older belief and practice always survive. 1 
 And this may help us to understand better how, in 
 certain circumstances, there may be a recrudescence 
 of an elder phase of faith instead of advance to a 
 higher. Taking a broad survey of history, we do 
 not hesitate to regard religious development as a 
 fact. But we would compare it to the seaward 
 movement of a great and deep river, breaking into 
 eddies in its course and containing backward 
 currents. 
 
 The history of religion is the record of man's 
 endeavour, ever and again renewed, to find, through 
 union with an object above him, the harmony and 
 completion for which his soul yearns. This object, 
 from the first, is conceived to be something better 
 than the common objects of experience, and grows 
 in worth and dignity with the growth of man's 
 inner life. Did faith realise all it seeks, there 
 
 1 The Christianity of the ignorant peasantry in some Roman 
 Catholic countries is really a blending of Christian and pagan be- 
 liefs, the latter never having completely died out. 
 
its History and Interpretation. 165 
 
 would not be any development of religion. But 
 man suffers disillusion, his gods disappoint him, 
 and he must fare forth in quest of a better pattern 
 of the things in heaven. As each stage of religion 
 is found to yield only a partial satisfaction, the 
 inner need of the soul urges it to clothe the 
 religious idea in some higher form. And the very 
 consciousness that a time-honoured faith has grown 
 too narrow is a token that the mind has already 
 some intuition of what is better. The term " dia- 
 lectic movement " has misleading associations, and 
 I would not wish to apply it to the evolution of 
 religion : but religious progress may fairly be de- 
 scribed as a transcending by the spirit of partial 
 satisfactions in order to gain one which is full 
 and abiding. Behind the varied manifestations of 
 religion is the spiritual nature of man from which 
 they issue. And the long history of religious faith 
 and hope, of spiritual desire that never finds "an 
 earthly close," suggests that the soul is inwardly 
 related to the Infinite, the true source of its 
 aspiration and the goal of its endeavour. 
 
 " Our destiny, our being's heart and home, 
 
 Is with Infinitude and only there ; 
 With hope it is, hope that can never die, 
 Effort and expectation and desire, 
 And something evermore to be." 
 
1 66 Religious Development. 
 
 But to justify this belief, if it can be jus- 
 tified, we must quit the humbler but surer 
 region of psychology and adventure ourselves in 
 that loftier realm where Speculative Philosophy 
 holds sway. 
 
ESSAY IV. 
 
 ON THE DISTINCTION OF INNER AND 
 OUTER EXPERIENCE 
 
ESSAY IV. 
 
 WE may regard this problem from two points of 
 view. In the first place, we may treat the question 
 simply from the historical standpoint, and try to 
 show the causes which led to the gradual separa- 
 tion of experience into two different spheres, an 
 outward and an inward. From the nature of the 
 case such an investigation must be largely psycho- 
 logical. It cannot in itself be taken as determin- 
 ing the ultimate validity of the distinction, though 
 it may furnish facts which an epistemological theory 
 must take into consideration. But, in the second 
 place, we can try to determine the real meaning 
 and value of the distinction in the ultimate nature 
 of things ; and this of course will be a problem 
 for metaphysical discussion. A larger inquiry of 
 this kind may furnish the conclusion that experi- 
 ence is fundamentally one, and that outer and inner 
 are only different phases or stages in its develop- 
 ment. Or it may lead us to conclude that the 
 
170 On the Distinction of 
 
 contrast we make and act upon in our ordinary 
 conduct is based upon a real difference which is 
 more than one of degree. It will be convenient 
 for us to consider first of all the genesis of the 
 distinction. 
 
 For ordinary thought nothing seems more obvi- 
 ous than the difference between outer and inner 
 experience. And one naturally assumes that a 
 distinction, which he draws himself so readily, 
 was always drawn with the same facility. But 
 undoubtedly this cannot have been the case. If 
 we distinguish two grades of experience, the former 
 perceptual and therefore concrete and individual, 
 the latter conceptual or generalised, it will only 
 be at the second stage that the distinction is con- 
 sciously made. The separation into two spheres, 
 inner and outer, and the apt reference of experience 
 to one or other of them, imply some development 
 of the power of generalisation. To a merely per- 
 ceptual consciousness the act of reflexion which 
 marks off the percept from the perceiving mind 
 would not be possible. Nevertheless we must 
 guard against a rigid division of perceptual from 
 conceptual experience. For the process of develop- 
 ment is continuous, and in perception itself un- 
 conscious inference is present. Even in the higher 
 animal self- conservation implies a rudimentary 
 capacity to draw conclusions. Only, however, on 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 171 
 
 the level of conscious generalisation can individual 
 experience receive a name and acquire a meaning. 
 In his lectures on ' Naturalism and Agnosticism ' 
 Prof. Ward has justly insisted that conceptual 
 thought is developed by intersubjective intercourse. 
 In other words, it involves language, and therefore 
 a social system. It is not as an isolated individual 
 but as a member of society that man has uni- 
 versalised his experience. On the other hand, 
 we must bear in mind that intersubjective inter- 
 course could not create an intellectual realm apart, 
 but has only developed to clear consciousness 
 elements implicitly present at the perceptual 
 stage. 
 
 If, then, the distinction of outer and inner experi- 
 ence only becomes possible on the level of con- 
 ceptual thought, how and why was it made and 
 elaborated then ? Great certainty on such a matter 
 can hardly be expected. I shall first examine an 
 ingenious theory on this point which is originally 
 due to K. Avenarius. It is termed the fallacy of 
 introjection. The theory is reproduced by Prof. 
 Ward in his lectures on ' Naturalism and Agnostic- 
 ism/ and for convenience I shall take his statements 
 in explanation. Substantially the process called 
 introjection rests on an error which is due to 
 common thought and language. Its essence "con- 
 sists in applying to the experiences of my fellow- 
 
172 On the Distinction of 
 
 creatures conceptions which have no counterpart 
 in my own. ... Of another common thought 
 and language lead me to assume not merely that 
 his experience is distinct from mine, but that it 
 is in him in the form of sensations, perceptions, 
 and other * internal states.' . . . Thus while my 
 environment is an external world for me, his ex- 
 perience is for me an internal world in him." 1 
 Consequently as we apply this conception to 
 the experience of others, and they do the same 
 for us, we are also led to apply it to our- 
 selves, and so to construe our own experience 
 in the light "of a false but highly plausible 
 analogy." 
 
 The foregoing solution of the problem is plausible, 
 but, as it stands, somewhat artificial and not quite 
 convincing. Beyond doubt intersubjective inter- 
 course has been necessary to develop a distinction 
 which implies conceptual thinking. But the part 
 in introjection assigned to an " involuntary error," 
 due to common thought and language, is hardly 
 intelligible, and appears to be superfluous. Evi- 
 dently some psychical growth is presupposed in the 
 act of interpretation by which common thought 
 places the thoughts and perceptions of another 
 within him. The process of inreading would be 
 meaningless unless each individual had already 
 
 1 Naturalism and Agnosticism, vol. ii. p. 172. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 173 
 
 some key to it in his own experience. 1 General- 
 ised experience implies a society, but it is not 
 credible that men in society elaborated a distinction 
 which did not somehow rest upon and appeal to 
 the life-history of individuals. 
 
 What facts, then, led to the historical genesis of 
 this distinction ? One of the earliest would be the 
 distinction of the body from surrounding objects. 
 The beginnings of this separation take us back to 
 the animal world. An animal would have no 
 chance of survival in the struggle for existence 
 if it did not note the difference between visual 
 changes due to movement on its own part and 
 those due to movement on the part of the object. 2 
 But man might have consciously differentiated his 
 body from surrounding objects without recognising 
 a soul or life within the body. The phenomena of 
 sleep and dreams must have decisively contributed 
 to this further result. In the lower culture dreams 
 are regarded as real occurrences, and are attributed 
 to a second or shadowy self within, which can leave 
 the body and return to it. In giving clearness to, 
 and in marking off, the experiences of this inner 
 self, no doubt the utterances and testimony of other 
 
 1 A similar objection is urged against Avenarius's view of introjec- 
 tion by W. Jerusalem, in his suggestive book, ' Die Urtheilsf unction/ 
 vid. p. 245. 
 
 2 Stout, Manual of Psychology, p. 323. 
 
174 On the Distinction of 
 
 individuals were highly important. Then the voice 
 and the breath coming from within seemed a 
 witness of the reality of the soul in the eyes of 
 primitive men. 1 When conceptual thinking had 
 given some fixity and generality to the notion of a 
 soul, we may conjecture that the phenomena of 
 error and illusion facts which must have been soon 
 noted because practically so important were treated 
 in the same way as dreams and attributed to the 
 inner self, which of course was still conceived in a 
 material way. A conscious contrast between objects 
 given in presentation and objects reproduced in 
 memory and imagination cannot be primitive, but 
 when the differentiation was made the latter pro- 
 cesses would naturally fall to be regarded as inward. 
 We need only further mention the activity of the 
 will, with the corresponding sense of a resisting 
 environment, which would give force and vividness 
 to the incipient distinction between an outward 
 world and an inward self. 
 
 If our view be right, then, the distinction of 
 outer and inner has its rude beginning in the 
 animistic mode of thought : and animism, as Dr 
 
 1 There seem to be reminiscences of ancient beliefs about respira- 
 tion in the Ionic school. Anaximenes, for example, supposes the 
 soul to be composed of air, ^ fax*]* ^caV, -YJ fjfjLerepa aijp ovcra 
 o-vyKpartl ^/xas (Hitter and Preller, 20). Heraclitus speaks of it 
 as a bright exhalation, di/adv/uaori?. Cp. also the use of the Hebrew 
 nV), Gen. ii. 7 ; Job xxvii. 3. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 175 
 
 Tylor and others have shown, is universal in the 
 lower culture. Survivals among civilised races 
 prove the presence among them long before of 
 animistic beliefs. Avenarius supposes that the 
 wide-spread phenomenon of animism is an extension 
 to nature of the principle of introjection as applied 
 to human beings. This is true if introjection means 
 nothing more than the attribution of a soul. But 
 the act of interpretation by which we place the 
 thoughts and perceptions of another man within 
 him as " internal states " is a somewhat developed 
 one. It is not natural to make the cruder pheno- 
 mena of animism depend on introjection thus 
 conceived. We do better justice to the facts when 
 we conclude that the distinction of outer and inner 
 has its germ in the experience of individuals. The 
 distinction was then developed by intersubjective 
 intercourse, and the notion of an internal soul 
 came to be applied not only to human beings but 
 also to natural objects. The idea of "internal ex- 
 perience " is later, and grows out of the theory of a 
 soul or finer second self within the body. 
 
 We find, then, this theory of a fallacy of primitive 
 thought does not solve our problem. But though 
 we trace the distinction to a basis in the actual 
 experience of individuals, the larger question of its 
 final validity still remains. For it is always possible 
 that thought may misconstrue experience. And, so 
 
176 On the Distinction of 
 
 far as we have gone, the division of our world into 
 two spheres may or may not have a justification in 
 the real nature of things. To this further aspect of 
 the problem we now turn. 
 
 The expression outer and inner, when applied to 
 experience, is to some extent metaphorical. For 
 experience is not a process carried on within the 
 head, nor are objects which appear external to us 
 and to one another on that account outside con- 
 sciousness. The distinction of inner and outer is 
 one which falls within experience, and what we call 
 an outward object and an inward idea are alike 
 states of consciousness. That externality in space 
 is not externality to mind was clearly brought out 
 by Kant. It lay beyond Kant's mental horizon to 
 discuss the distinction of outer and inner from the 
 point of view of the historical growth of experience. 
 But he accepts the distinction as justifiable and in- 
 corporates it in his theory of knowledge. That 
 which is in space and time belongs to outer sense, 
 that which is in time alone belongs to inner sense. 
 And there is a necessary connexion between the 
 two spheres, for that which is determined in space 
 is determined from the side of the subject in terms 
 of inner sense. By attending to the mental process 
 by 'which all objects become possible the inward 
 side of experience would be differentiated from the 
 outer. But Kant afterwards saw that in putting 
 
Inner and Older Experience. 177 
 
 this interpretation on the common distinction he 
 involved himself in difficulties which affected the 
 consistency of his theoretical philosophy. For the 
 inner life was perpetually changing, and we could 
 not, as he thought, apply to it the category of 
 substance as the permanent in time. Nor could 
 that product of Kantian abstraction, the spectral 
 pure ego, which was without content, serve as a 
 permanent unity to which inner changes were 
 referred. 
 
 Accordingly in the second edition of the 'Critique,' 
 in the " Remark on the Principles of Judgment," we 
 find Kant modifying his earlier view, and asserting 
 that outer sense is presupposed in the conscious 
 determination of ourselves in time. "It is by 
 means of external perception that we make intel- 
 ligible to ourselves the various successive changes 
 in which we ourselves exist. . . . No change can 
 possibly be an object of experience apart from the 
 consciousness of something that is permanent, and 
 in inner sense nothing that is permanent can be 
 found." On this view it would be as logically sub- 
 sequent to and contrasted with the determination 
 of objects in space that the consciousness of inner 
 experience is possible. 1 It is of course evident that 
 
 1 Dr Caird thinks that the modifications in statement made by 
 Kant, in dealing with this point in the second edition of his ' Critique,' 
 indicate a movement of his mind, of which perhaps he was not him- 
 
 M 
 
178 On the Distinction of 
 
 Kant in his treatment of this distinction is greatly 
 influenced by the general theory of experience 
 which he found it necessary to postulate. He 
 could not admit that the self was real in the 
 sense of maintaining its identity amid its changing 
 activities. Hence the fact of external perception 
 was judged necessary to give the contrast of per- 
 manence over against inner changes. Yet in Kant's 
 theory it is impossible to understand how a pure 
 form of perception like space, when somehow super- 
 induced on an affection of sense which is mysteriously 
 given, could, even with the necessary help of the 
 schematised categories, produce those localised ob- 
 jects in space which fill the field of outer experience. 
 It is conceivable that spatial and temporal relations 
 may have been evolved out of sense-affection as a 
 form which is implicitly contained in it ; but it is 
 not intelligible how pure forms of intuition could 
 
 self fully conscious, towards a larger and more consistent idealism 
 (* Phil, of Kant,' i. 417, 614). I am not aware how far he is supported 
 in this view by competent Kantian scholars. But I venture to think 
 that Kant simply desired to give a statement of his critical idealism 
 less open to objection and more carefully guarded than that which 
 he had given in the first edition and in the Prolegomena. While he 
 shows in the second edition that inner sense depends on outer sense, 
 he also repeats that a phenomenon (Erscheinung) must be a pheno- 
 menon of Something (ed. ' Kehrbach,' p. 23). And though he admits 
 that this reference of perception to a reality beyond it might not be 
 necessary for intellectual perception (op. eit. t p. 32), yet it is no part 
 of his theory that human intelligence is implicitly a consciousness 
 which is capable of exercising an intellectuelle Anschauung. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 179 
 
 be read into an alien matter. We refrain, however, 
 from entering on a detailed criticism of Kant, for 
 it will generally be admitted that his theory of 
 knowledge is too unsystematic, too little penetrated 
 by the notion of development, to be accepted as it 
 stands. The motto simplex sigillum veri may not 
 always be true, but the cumbersome and ill-adjusted 
 machinery of the * Critique ' of itself provokes doubt 
 and unbelief. Let us rather see how Kant's view 
 on this subject is amended and developed by Dr 
 Caird in his well-known treatise on the * Philosophy 
 of Kant.' l 
 
 Inner and outer experience we are there told 
 are only different stages in the development of 
 consciousness, which in another aspect is the de- 
 velopment of the object. From the simplest 
 determinations of the object in space and time 
 we advance organically through the categories, or 
 forms of judgment, to the world as completely 
 determined by reason or self - consciousness, which 
 if logically posterior is the real presupposition of 
 the whole movement. The later and more highly 
 articulated stage of this development is, properly 
 speaking, inner experience, and it can only be dis- 
 tinguished from the consciousness of the world in 
 the sense that it is that consciousness in a more 
 completely developed form. But as each fact of 
 
 1 Phil, of Kant, vol. i. p. 614 ff. 
 
180 On the Distinction of 
 
 experience involves a reference to the self, so 
 every outer experience will have its inner side. 
 On the other hand, there is no inner experience 
 which is not also outer, but we call it inner be- 
 cause the inner side is specially reflected on, in 
 other words we definitely recognise it as belonging 
 to the self. 
 
 That there are elements of truth in this statement 
 we do not seek to deny. Inner experience could 
 not consistently develop except in relation to and 
 in distinction from outer experience. And what 
 we call an outer experience must also have an 
 inner side. Nor can there be doubt that in the 
 historical growth of experience its two aspects have 
 advanced pari passu. None the less it is difficult 
 to regard inner experience as merely outer experi- 
 ence at a more concrete and highly articulated 
 stage of growth. If we set aside for the moment 
 the question whether the distinction between them 
 can be minimised in this fashion, we might still 
 argue that, from the point of view of psychological 
 development, it is inner experience which is primary 
 and outer which is derivative. A developed self- 
 consciousness is mediated by the consciousness of 
 objects, but in the last resort we must postulate 
 a direct and real activity of the self as the 
 ground and beginning of all progress in experience. 
 There is a sense in which we must be immediately 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 1 8 1 
 
 conscious of the operations of our own minds, and 
 it is only as the result of inferential thought that 
 we mark off a section of experience as outer. On 
 this ground we should be disposed to modify Dr 
 Caird's statement, and to treat inner experience 
 as fundamentally the more simple and elementary. 
 From this standpoint development begins from an 
 active self in relation to an environment, which 
 gradually distinguishes that environment from itself, 
 and by the aid of conceptual thought defines a 
 portion of its whole experience as external. 
 
 But the further question remains whether a dis- 
 tinction of degree between outer and inner experi- 
 ence covers all the facts. Dr Caird does not find 
 anything in the object as determined in space 
 which is not taken up into self-consciousness. The 
 advance from outer to inner experience is just a 
 process in which thought goes on to a more and 
 more complete determination of things, till "it 
 finds its own unity in the object." 1 It is hard 
 to see how on this view the individuality and 
 uniqueness which we discover in experience are 
 explained at all. And in reference to the matter 
 on hand this theory does not afford room for certain 
 obvious facts. Inner and outer experience refuse 
 to melt into one another in the way suggested. 
 Mere reflexion on the inner side of an outer 
 
 1 Phil, of Kant., vol. i. p. 470. 
 
1 82 On the Distinction of 
 
 experience does not lead us to regard it as inner. 
 A man, for instance, examining a statue critically 
 in order to give his opinion of it, reflects on the 
 impressions he receives and recognises them as his 
 own. Yet he would not call his experience an 
 inward one. Even more decisively would the same 
 individual refuse to term outward his experience 
 when, leaning back on his chair and closing his 
 eyes, he thought out carefully the merits of several 
 possible lines of action in order to select the best. 
 And between the one experience and the other 
 there would appear to him to be a qualitative 
 difference. If every inner experience is outer as 
 well, why do we habitually distinguish what we 
 call subjective mental processes from the percep- 
 tion of outward objects, and contrast the one with 
 the other? No doubt each outer experience has 
 an inward side, and in virtue of this we some- 
 times wrongly interpret an inner state to signify 
 facts in the external world. But we never mistake 
 our perception of objects in space for a purely 
 inward mental process. We find, therefore, a diffi- 
 culty in accepting the view that the contrast of 
 inner and outer experience rests entirely on a 
 difference of degree in the development of con- 
 sciousness. From this standpoint distinctions 
 which are universally noted and acted upon are 
 not adequately explained. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience, 183 
 
 Against this it may be urged that inner and 
 outer experience cannot be two diverse kinds of 
 experience, for both are experiences of the one 
 subject and are distinctions within the one con- 
 sciousness. We have already admitted this. For 
 the purely perceptual consciousness experience 
 would be one, and the generalised distinction of 
 outward and inward we know is made possible by 
 conceptual thinking. But on the level of mediate 
 thought, or rational inference, a new question 
 presses itself upon us. We ask, Does the ulti- 
 mate raison d'etre of the distinction lie in the 
 conscious selves who make it? Or is the inference 
 reasonable that the experience which we name ex- 
 ternal gets its character from the implication of 
 realities, which are not those of self - conscious 
 subjects? In other words, Is outer experience 
 the interpretation by self-conscious subjects of the 
 action of reals which thought itself does not create ? 
 This we believe to be the true solution of the 
 problem, and the explanation of the refusal of 
 outer experience to be taken up into and merged 
 in inner experience. 
 
 But before going further let us deal with an 
 objection which is certain to be raised. The as- 
 sumption that a trans - subjective real is implied 
 in presented objects will be termed gratuitous. 
 The apparent independence of the object, it will 
 
1 84 On the Distinction of 
 
 be contended, is entirely the outcome of conceptual 
 thought. For the application of the concept 
 generalises the particular experience of perception, 
 and treats it as an instance of a general relation : 
 and this just means that " we are conscious we 
 have before us an object which exists independ- 
 ently of its presentation in the particular case." 
 On this view the seemingly independent outer 
 object would be, if not relative to the individual 
 thinker, yet relative to " consciousness in general/' 
 the rational self-consciousness which is the same 
 in all human subjects. 
 
 In reply we may point out that conceptual 
 thought depends for its individual reference upon 
 perceptive experience, which is altogether special 
 and concrete. As Kant himself granted, particular 
 connexion in experience can only be learned from 
 experience ; laws of nature like gravitation cannot 
 be deduced a priori. The ground, then, of the 
 particular character of individual objects and the 
 special relations in which they stand to one another 
 can only be found in perceptual experience. It is 
 indeed only by an act of abstraction that we can 
 picture a purely percipient ego. But none the less 
 this percipient consciousness must take note of, and 
 be affected by, realities other than itself, in order 
 that universal experience may have its specific side. 
 For conceptual thought can only evolve out of per- 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 185 
 
 ception what is implicitly contained in it. That 
 the perceptive consciousness is not aware of this 
 reference of the percept to something beyond itself 
 is no disproof of the fact that there is such a 
 reference. If inferential thought compels us to 
 postulate this reference, we must accept its verdict. 
 For we open the door to a hopeless scepticism, if 
 we refuse to admit that the real must conform to 
 what is rational. I shall now give one or two 
 illustrations to show that experience is not explic- 
 able unless we posit such a trans- subjective reality. 
 
 What we term external experience impresses us 
 as containing an element of inevitableness. We 
 are conscious that we have a share in directing the 
 process of our thoughts or the movement of our 
 limbs, but if we look to the heaven above or the 
 earth around, the things we see we cannot help 
 seeing. 1 The process of consciousness in the in- 
 dividual persons A, B, C, and D, may be very 
 different at a particular time, but at a certain 
 moment they all, without choice on their part, 
 register an experience X, say the appearance of 
 the sun. Let us call the percepts of A, B, C, and 
 D, a, 6, c, d; then a, 6, c, d contain an implicit 
 reference to x, which becomes for universal thinking 
 X. But suppose they do not, and that X is an 
 
 1 Berkeley, in his * Principles of Human Knowledge,' distinguishes 
 in this way perception from imagination. 
 
1 86 On the Distinction of 
 
 abstraction elaborated out of a, 6, c, d. Then there 
 must be some reason in the series a, b, c, d why 
 the abstract X should be evolved and not Y or Z. 
 That is to say a, 6, c, and d must each be so 
 qualified that it accepts the interpretation X but 
 excludes Y or Z. Ex hypothesi the cause of the 
 specially qualified percepts a, 6, c, d cannot be 
 found in the previous condition of A, B, C, D. 
 Nor can the abstract X give any common qualifica- 
 tion to these percepts. Consequently the sudden 
 manifestation to different minds, the consistency, 
 the inevitableness of the experience we call X 
 becomes quite unintelligible. And the facts remain 
 inexplicable unless we admit that X is more than 
 an abstraction, and is significant of something (x) 
 which has a reality for itself. 
 
 We put the same point in a somewhat different 
 light when we direct attention to the fact that a 
 person refers various experiences which he has had 
 at different times to one object A. He has seen 
 A frequently, and believes that if he complies with 
 the conditions he will see it again. For popular 
 thought this is the common, if fallacious, argument 
 for the independent existence of A as it stands. 
 Plainly, however, A in its unique setting cannot 
 be deduced from the universal side of experience : 
 nor is there any constraining reason in the in- 
 dividual himself why he should refer various 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 187 
 
 percepts to one and the same object A. That 
 necessity comes from the side of the object, and 
 A must stand for something which has had a 
 determining influence on perception while it 
 persists beyond it. Again, however inadequate 
 the "laws of nature" may be as an explanation 
 of concrete reality, yet they have validity in 
 nature. They enable us to anticipate experience. 
 An eclipse is predicted years before it happens, 
 and it takes place exactly as predicted. Here we 
 have a perceptual experience A furnishing the 
 basis for a mathematical construction on which 
 the forecast was made which was verified in per- 
 ceptual experience B. Between A and B there 
 is a process which need not come into consciousness 
 at all, but must be real if B is to take place. The 
 facts require us here to assume that the rational 
 process by which B is deduced from A has for 
 its counterpart an activity in things which thought 
 interprets but does not create. 
 
 These are somewhat obvious instances, but we 
 must not ignore their significance on that account. 
 They all unite in enforcing the one lesson. We 
 admit that the objects of outer experience are ideal 
 constructions, but the facts compel us to add that 
 these constructions can only be valid interpreta- 
 tions of a reality beyond. And in regard to the 
 distinction between inner and outer experience, we 
 
1 88 On the Distinction of 
 
 conclude that outer experience has the special char- 
 acter which attaches to it, because it directly 
 implies that the subject is influenced by realities 
 other than itself. The subject creates the dis- 
 tinction, but it does so as its interpretation of 
 a real difference within the whole of its ex- 
 perience. 
 
 We must now try to form a more definite concep- 
 tion of this trans-subjective reality which we find it 
 necessary to postulate. But we require to state our 
 position in this reference with some care. It will not 
 do to argue that in "physical events," as distinguished 
 from the subjective sequence of ideas, we have the 
 fundamental notion of externality. 1 For a ' physical 
 event' is by no means a primitive datum of con- 
 sciousness, but implies ideal construction ; and it is 
 absurd to suppose that the object as it exists for 
 developed consciousness has the same significance 
 apart from consciousness. Influenced by these con- 
 siderations, J. S. Mill, as is well known, defined 
 matter as " a permanent possibility of sensations " ; 
 and he explains that these " permanent possibilities" 
 are " not constructed by the mind itself but merely 
 recognised by it." 2 That which persists through 
 changes and has capacities must in some sense be 
 real ; but Mill gives us no light as to how we are to 
 
 1 Vid. Mind, N.S., No. 22, p. 222. 
 
 2 Exam, of Hamilton, 6th edition, p. 239. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 189 
 
 think of this reality. Nor, on the whole, has Kant's 
 treatment of the subject been helpful. His "thing 
 in itself" is at one point regarded as the positive 
 source of sensations, but afterwards it is fined down 
 to a mere limiting notion. 1 On neither view is the 
 process of experience intelligible ; and the conclu- 
 sion seemed inevitable that philosophy must either 
 return to the realism of Locke or advance to the 
 absolute idealism of the post - Kantian thinkers. 
 Without committing ourselves to this inference, we 
 may frankly allow that the notion of " things in 
 themselves " is inconsistent as well as useless. That 
 which ex hypothesi possesses no knowable qualities 
 can never be coerced into active relations with 
 elements within conscious experience. If this were 
 possible the original assumption must have been 
 wrong, and the 'thing in itself ' instead of being an 
 impenetrable mystery has some affinity to conscious- 
 ness. It might seem, then, that in trying to do 
 justice to the facts of outer experience we have 
 reached an impasse. On the one side it appears 
 impossible to explain the facts of sense-perception if 
 the object only exists as experienced. On the other 
 side, if we postulate an unknowable reality behind 
 
 1 With this we may compare the Aristotelian v\rj which is some- 
 times spoken of as mere privation o-rep^cris, and at other times is 
 regarded as a positive means through which individuals are differen- 
 tiated. 
 
190 On the Distinction of 
 
 the things of sense, the unity of experience becomes 
 inexplicable. 
 
 There is one sense in which no sober idealist 
 refuses to admit that the object of experience has 
 a reality of its own. Among the objects of our 
 experience are other human subjects who, we inevit- 
 ably infer, have a reality for themselves. Entering 
 into our experience they can never be dissolved into 
 it, but persist beyond it. This is an admission of 
 some significance. For it means that we recognise 
 individual centres of thought, feeling, and will, 
 which decisively influence our consciousness, while 
 they are independent of it. Here we have a prin- 
 ciple of individuality as object, whose qualities, as 
 recognised and interpreted by us, are represented in 
 it by modes of its own activity. And when we have 
 admitted this we are bound in consistency to go 
 further. The law of continuity, as justly insisted 
 on by Leibniz, forces us to regard the principle of 
 individuality as having many stages and degrees of 
 development. There is no break in the process by 
 which life advances to consciousness and to self- 
 consciousness ; and the line of separation between 
 organic and what we call inorganic matter is a vanish- 
 ing one. Moreover, the psychologist is compelled to 
 postulate the reality of a subconscious mental world, 
 in order to explain phenomena which are manifest 
 above the threshold of consciousness. And it is 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 191 
 
 reasonable to suppose that what is substantial in 
 lower forms of life is one in kind (though very dif- 
 ferent in degree) with the conscious self in man. The 
 latter would be the e^epyeia of which the former was 
 the Swapis. The real on which the ideational activity 
 of the subject works in constructing the phenomenal 
 world is, on this view, manifold spiritual substances 
 or causalities ; and the diverse qualities of the world, 
 as given in experience, would be grounded in the 
 various activities of these substances. The basis of 
 the phenomenon termed matter is, on this theory, an 
 inner life which is allied to our own consciousness. 1 
 The point we wish to urge, then, is that if you 
 accept the world of intersubjective intercourse as a 
 fact, you cannot restrict the principle to the rela- 
 tions of human individuals with one another. The 
 interaction of individuals not existing merely for 
 each other, but each for itself, must also be possible 
 at lower stages of development, and there is no 
 break in the process of advance from the lower to 
 the higher. Hence there seems to be no valid 
 reason why one should not admit that our so-called 
 external experience involves the presence to our 
 consciousness of manifold spiritual substances which 
 are subjects at lower planes of development. A 
 trans-subjective real is inferentially necessary to 
 
 1 Cf. Paulsen, Einleitung in die Philosophie, p. 387 ; Stout, Manual 
 of Psychology, p. 54. 
 
192 On the Distinction of 
 
 explain external experience ; and as we construe this 
 real in terms of spirit and not of matter, we cannot 
 be accused of setting up a dualism which makes 
 knowledge inexplicable. The constructive work of 
 thought has been already referred to. But thought 
 cannot weave out of itself the content of experience. 
 Something must be given, and the requisite funda- 
 menta relationis are supplied by individual reals, 
 by everything which possesses a degree of inner life 
 and is for itself as well as for others. On this 
 hypothesis we do justice to the primacy and cen- 
 trality of the inner life, while we avoid the absurdity 
 of reducing external experience to thought-relations, 
 or of positing unknowable "things in themselves" 
 behind the phenomena of sense. 
 
 We are now in a position to deal with a point 
 of some importance which bears on the distinction 
 of inner and outer. We mean the spatial reference 
 which the distinction suggests. It may be assumed 
 here that neither space nor time can be an empty 
 form having a real existence, which is somehow 
 applied to things. 1 They must, therefore, be in 
 some way developed out of the content of experience 
 itself : though not real in themselves, they must be 
 evolved from some basis in reality, or to use a phrase 
 employed by Leibniz, they must be phenomena bene 
 fundata. This point of reference to reality can only 
 
 1 Vid. Lotze, Metaphysics, bk. ii. chaps, i., iii. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 193 
 
 be found in the interaction of those individual reals 
 which are the ground of experience. The mutual 
 determination of different spiritual substances would 
 be represented from the standpoint of the perceiving 
 subject under the form of space. And inasmuch as 
 all experience must be construed in terms of the 
 states of a subject for which both itself and other 
 selves exist, we have time as the universal form 
 in which the subject represents everything that 
 happens. The long history of experience, and the 
 generalisation which is its outcome, have served to 
 invest space and time with a seeming reality and 
 independence of their own. Only the unworkable 
 nature of this conclusion and the contradictions in 
 which it involves him, shake a man's natural faith 
 in an opinion which seems so well founded. It 
 would be too much to say that the theory we accept 
 satisfactorily solves every difficulty, but it avoids a 
 twofold error. For it treats neither space nor time 
 as an independent real, nor does it reduce them to 
 subjective mental fictions which cut' us off from 
 reality. They are representations in the subject, 
 but they are also valid forms under which he in- 
 terprets what is real. 
 
 From the standpoint of the historic development 
 of experience the universal point of view is late. To 
 the merely perceptual consciousness space and time 
 would not be distinguished. The " selective in- 
 
 N 
 
194 On the Distinction of 
 
 terest " or the practical need which turns the atten- 
 tion of the animal to space and time is concerned 
 with the fact of movement which involves both. I 
 refer to the temporal and spatial adjustments which 
 are necessary to secure food, to seize prey, and to 
 escape a foe. And it is from the association in man 
 of active movement with the capacity of generalising 
 that the differentiation and development of the ideas 
 of space and time are due. The stages of this 
 progress are however matter for psychological dis- 
 cussion. The final result is that space is hypos- 
 tatised as a comprehensive whole which exists for 
 itself, and which contains within it all that general- 
 ised experience treats as an independent reality. 
 And language has given universal currency to the 
 habit of speaking of what is believed to belong to 
 the mind as in it and of what does not belong to it as 
 outside it. Philosophic reflexion forces us to correct 
 this abstraction. Both the spatial image and the 
 object it contains are shown to belong to the mind 
 as ideal constructions. Yet the common-sense point 
 of view has a certain justification. For ideal con- 
 struction is at root interpretation ; and in the exist- 
 ence and activity of trans-subjective realities lies the 
 possibility of our representing to ourselves the world 
 of objects extended in space. 
 
 In the remainder of this paper I will try to 
 answer certain objections which may be made to 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 195 
 
 the theory of reality we have accepted. You have 
 admitted, it will be said, the presence of ideal con- 
 struction in experience, why should you infer that 
 so-called things are anything more than such con- 
 structions? A thing, however seemingly solid, is 
 only the meeting-point of universal qualities or rela- 
 tions. In reply it may be asked, What is meant by 
 a meeting-point ? Evidently something which serves 
 as a ground of identity and a bond of connexion 
 between the qualities. These cannot fly loose and 
 unclaimed in the world of experience. For if in a 
 sense they belong to reality as a whole, yet they 
 definitely pertain to particular determinations of 
 reality and not to others. No doubt if we suppose 
 that qualities are somehow attached as adjectives to 
 isolated fragments of reality, we shall be proved 
 inconsistent : the substance does not exist outside 
 its attributes. But this objection does not apply 
 when we conceive the 'support of qualities' after 
 the analogy of the self, and construe the qualities 
 themselves as representations in consciousness of 
 the interaction between spiritual substances. 1 In 
 a similar spirit it is said that to advocate the reality 
 of things is to champion a mere fiction of the mind. 
 
 1 It will be said that this is tacitly to admit that the individual 
 is only qualified in virtue of its relations. I do not think so, for the 
 qualities which become explicit through interaction point to positive 
 differences in the monads themselves. 
 
196 On the Distinction of 
 
 For the so-called thing is " ruined by thought " : it 
 goes to pieces under the touch of the speculative 
 inquirer. Popular thought is certainly arbitrary in 
 the way in which it applies the name ; and we do 
 not deny that things are sometimes mental fictions. 
 A bag of grain might be called a thing/ while the 
 name would not be given to the contents spread out 
 upon the floor. But popular terminology does not 
 concern us here ; and we prefer to speak of indi- 
 vidual reals which have a being for themselves. 
 These are not due to ideal construction, but are 
 presupposed by it, for without them thought would 
 not have data on which to work. Obviously it will 
 not be possible for us, with our present knowledge, 
 to distinguish what is individual at levels of develop- 
 ment far distant from our own. 
 
 But even in this sense, it is contended, the exist- 
 ence of individual reals cannot be maintained. The 
 more we reflect the better we shall see that the 
 significance of every predicate involves relations 
 which force us to go beyond the individual itself; 
 and the further we carry the process, the more un- 
 real becomes the abstraction which remains. The 
 fact is, as we learn, that an individual, or monad, is 
 a fiction ; it is reducible to a mere adjective which 
 falls within the only true individual, the universe as 
 a whole the one ultimate reality. 
 
 As a result of this drastic argument, not only 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 197 
 
 ' things ' but conscious selves are * ruined/ or at 
 least they should be. For the reasoning employed, 
 if valid, ought also to undermine the individuality 
 and identity of the human self by dissolving it into 
 a changing tissue of relations. The logical conse- 
 quence of this argument must be to discredit any 
 theory of reality which the human ego can form. 
 Experience, on the contrary, testifies to a self which 
 distinguishes itself from its states and maintains its 
 unity in them. And it is after the analogy of the 
 self that we conceive the individual reals which are 
 the ground of the external world as perceived. 
 
 It will still be urged that the test of the truth of 
 any theory is its coherency ; in other words, if we 
 can " think it out " consistently in all its bearings, 
 we establish its claim to truth. And individual 
 reals cannot be "thought out" without yielding up 
 their reality to the absolute. That there is an ele- 
 ment of truth in this contention we do not deny, 
 and we will return to the point presently. But if 
 you reduce individuals to mere appearance, and turn 
 their identity into a fiction, in the ostensible in- 
 terests of rational explanation you are ignoring 
 facts which require to be explained. If, like Par- 
 menides, you say that the one only is and the many 
 are not, you have still to account for the illusion of 
 * not-being.' 
 
 Suppose for the moment that thought did compel 
 
198 On the Distinction of 
 
 us to merge all individuals in the one perfect in- 
 dividual or absolute, I do not see how, on this 
 supposition, we are to explain the appearance of in- 
 dividuality within the whole. For it can hardly be 
 maintained that the illusion is due to the abstract 
 method of ordinary thought which concentrates 
 attention on one aspect of reality and neglects 
 the rest. On this assumption the term might be 
 applied or rejected according as the point of view 
 changed. Yet there are centres of experience which 
 claim to have a reality of their owij from whatever 
 standpoint they are regarded. And one cannot 
 understand how, if the theory of reality we are 
 considering be true, such a claim could ever come 
 to be made. But, it may be urged, the rights of 
 logical thought are supreme, and to deny these 
 rights is to pave the way to a scepticism of the 
 worst kind. And certainly, if thought and reality 
 are not ultimately consistent, philosophical discus- 
 sion must be fruitless. Still it does not seem to me 
 that the demands of coherent thinking forbid us to 
 attribute reality to individuals which are not them- 
 selves absolute. If you assume that the individual 
 is simply its relations, then it may consistently be 
 deprived of any being for itself in the ultimate 
 system : but the validity of the conclusion is spoiled 
 by the inadequacy of the premises. The self which 
 thinks, and so relates itself to other objects and 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 199 
 
 objects to one another in the relational form of con- 
 sciousness, is not the whole self. And though we 
 are bound to accept the relational system as a valid 
 interpretation by thought of what is given in ex- 
 perience, we are not entitled to say that the whole 
 self of experience is exhausted by this interpreta- 
 tion. Thought presupposes experience, and in some 
 form experience must have preceded the genesis in 
 time of intellectual activity. It is just because 
 experience is richer than thought that a self, or 
 individual centre of experience, is, in Prof. Ward's 
 phrase, a fundamentum relationis. 
 
 A few further observations on this point may be 
 made. Mr Bradley has justly remarked that the 
 subject in a judgment must always have a reality 
 beyond the predicate. To reduce the two sides to 
 a fundamental identity as aspects of one thought- 
 content is to destroy the possibility of predication. 1 
 And this must apply to the judgment of self-con- 
 sciousness as well as to that of perception. Thus, 
 when we predicate thought of the self, the judg- 
 ment is made possible by the fact that the self is 
 also a centre of feeling and will, and cannot be 
 dissolved in the pure unity of thought. This dis- 
 tinction makes the judgment significant ; and self- 
 consciousness is an illustration of the principle that 
 the object of thought is more than thought. On the 
 
 1 Appearance and Eeality, p. 170. 
 
20O On the Distinction of 
 
 other hand, all three elements are embraced in the 
 self as subject of experience, and so the self is not 
 a reality beyond experience in this wider sense. 
 We are not, therefore, entitled to argue that the 
 subject of experience is equivalent to thinking- 
 subject, and on this ground to claim that the object 
 is thought and nothing more. The reality to which 
 I refer my states of consciousness must always be 
 more than these states. We have already tried to 
 show in what way we think this reality is to be 
 conceived. 
 
 It would be futile, however, to deny that those 
 who believe the hypothesis of individual reals to 
 be justifiable, and even necessary, are in a posi- 
 tion of great difficulty when they try to explain 
 their place and meaning in the ultimate system of 
 things. Prof. Ward, for example, in his lectures on 
 ' Naturalism and Agnosticism ' accepts the principle 
 of individual selves or centres of experience, but it 
 is somewhat difficult to understand the relations in 
 which he conceives these centres to stand to the 
 Absolute. God, we are told, is " the living Unity 
 of all," and behind the development of experience 
 there can only be " the connecting conserving 
 acts of the one Supreme." x Moreover, Prof. Ward 
 admits real contingency in the divine working, but it 
 is the contingency " not of chance but of freedom." 
 
 1 Op. tit., vol. ii. pp. 280, 281. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 201 
 
 In his view the divine Unity which comprehends 
 all is evidently not that of a system where all the 
 elements are determined in relation to one another 
 and to the whole. A view like the foregoing 
 requires a good deal of explanation, and if it 
 obviates certain difficulties, it also exposes itself to 
 certain criticisms. In any case, it would have been 
 interesting and valuable to have had a more explicit 
 statement on this point from so able a thinker. 
 For it is just on this question of the relation of 
 individuals which are real to the Absolute, that 
 opponents press home their arguments most 
 strongly. Thus it is urged, "Those who cling to 
 the idea that there is an absolute principle of 
 individuality in man and in other finite substances, 
 seem necessarily to be led to a denial of all real 
 connexion or relation between such substances." l 
 It must be granted, of course, that there can be 
 only one absolute Being, and a plurality of res 
 completce is impossible. To claim such absolute 
 reality for individuals would be suicidal, seeing 
 that each is only an element in the universe, and 
 all must find a place and receive a meaning in a 
 coherent system. For this we require a supreme 
 connecting and organising activity which is present 
 in all individuals. Lotze tries to satisfy this need 
 by saying that all substances " are parts of a single 
 
 1 Caird, Evolution of Eeligion, vol. ii. p. 83. 
 
2O2 On the Distinction of 
 
 real Being." l Yet if this statement be accepted 
 as it stands, it does not appear possible to resist 
 the inference that the Pluralism, which philosophy 
 found it necessary to postulate at an earlier stage, 
 is only a temporary hypothesis, and is superseded 
 when thought rises to the final synthesis. The use 
 of the term ' substance ' in this connexion has been 
 objected to. Wundt, for example, criticises it, and 
 would substitute for it causality or activity. 2 But 
 it is not clear that the material associations which, 
 as he points out, cling to the one word are absent 
 from the other. Moreover, if we are to think of 
 activity at all, it must be as the activity of some- 
 thing real ; and we do not mean more when we use 
 the word substance to denote a centre of experience. 
 In his c Microcosmus ; Lotze has stated somewhat 
 differently his attitude to the ultimate Unity which 
 philosophy strives after. " It seems to me that philo- 
 sophy is the endeavour of the human mind, after this 
 wonderful world has come into existence and we in 
 it, to work its way back in thought and bring the 
 facts of outer and inner experience into connexion 
 so far as our present position in the world allows." 3 
 
 1 Metaphysics (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p. 165. 
 
 2 System der Philosophic, p. 427. Paulsen's position on this point 
 is, I think, just. He advocates the use of the term substance here, 
 only demanding that we first make clear what we mean by it. 
 Atomistic associations are, of course, out of place. 
 
 3 Microcosmus (Eng. trans.), vol. ii. p. 718. 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 203 
 
 The note of caution here is justifiable. For our 
 thought is necessarily infected by spatial and tem- 
 poral metaphors. And space and time on any 
 view cannot adequately express the nature of the 
 Absolute. We are inclined to forget that cate- 
 gories which are valid within experience cannot 
 be employed in the same way to the ultimate 
 conditions of experience. And it is evident that 
 no category at our disposal is entirely adequate 
 to explain the relation of the Absolute to the 
 individual. 
 
 The result of our discussion then is, that the facts 
 of outer experience lead us to infer that the in- 
 dividual subject is here in direct relation with a 
 system of other-selves. In inner experience, again, 
 the subject's own activity is primary, and relation 
 to other -selves is only indirectly implied. But 
 though we claim that the monads are real, the 
 reality which pertains to each individual can only 
 be secondary or derivative. For the individual has 
 its determinate character elicited through interaction 
 with other monads, and the whole system pre- 
 supposes an organising ground and principle of 
 unity. If we desire a figurative expression of this 
 unity in difference, perhaps we might find it in the 
 connexion of soul and body. In an organism the 
 separate parts, or members, are essentially related to 
 one another, while each has its specific function in 
 
2O4 On the Distinction of 
 
 the whole. The soul, again, or the e^reXe^cta, to use 
 Aristotle's word, is the presupposition of the organ- 
 ism and the ideal principle which gives it meaning 
 and truth. By some such analogy we may conceive 
 of the Absolute as immanent in all individuals, yet 
 allowing to each a definite function and degree of 
 reality in the whole, while its own being is not lost 
 in the process of finite experience. For that the 
 universe is a coherent whole is a presupposition 
 both of thought and of ethical action. 
 
 A final observation may be added. 
 
 In any view we take of the ultimate Unity, we 
 must not ignore the world of ethical and spiritual 
 values. For the facts of moral and religious experi- 
 ence have as good a claim to be taken into account 
 as the facts of science. The tendency to " excessive 
 unification," which Aristotle objected to in Plato, 
 has always been a danger to which philosophy is 
 peculiarly liable. And a philosophy which, in the 
 interests of system, undermines the moral-respon- 
 sibility of the individual and treats religion as an 
 illusion, lays itself open to the charge of explaining 
 away what it cannot explain. The intellectual 
 necessity we are under of striving after unity in 
 all experience must be conditioned by the ethical 
 necessity by which we postulate that the Supreme 
 Reality satisfies our spiritual nature. There can be no 
 final dualism between the two spheres any more than 
 
Inner and Outer Experience. 205 
 
 there can be between inner and outer experience. 
 But the Absolute, be it remembered, does not merely 
 explain an aspect of the world, but the world as a 
 whole. And a thinker whose outlook is catholic will 
 try neither to ignore nor to misconstrue any phase 
 of experience in order to secure unity of system. 
 
ESSAY V. 
 
 THE ULTIMATE BASIS AND MEANING 
 OF RELIGION 
 
ESSAY V. 
 
 To determine the ultimate basis of religion, the 
 ground in reality which conditions its manifestation, 
 is at once the most difficult as it is the most im- 
 portant part of our subject. At present the tend- 
 ency of those who know' is to say little, and 
 that not dogmatically, on this matter. Nevertheless 
 it is clear that, if we refuse to face the enterprise, 
 we surrender at the outset any claim to put a final 
 interpretation on the religious consciousness and its 
 development in time. One reason which no doubt 
 deters students of religion from embarking on onto- 
 logical speculations is the difficulty of verifying 
 them. For here we have not simply a definite 
 group of religious phenomena, psychological or his- 
 torical, which we have to connect together and inter- 
 pret. In this case it is more easy to test a theory 
 from point to point by bringing it into contact with 
 facts of experience. But when we pass to consider 
 the ultimate ground and meaning of religious ex- 
 
2io The ultimate Basis and 
 
 perience as a whole, the process of verification is 
 much more difficult. For, needless to say, the 
 thinker cannot rise to an absolute principle, and 
 then descend again to the region of temporal ex- 
 perience, and exhibit this experience in its diverse 
 phases as necessary stages or moments in the un- 
 folding of that principle. The only feasible test 
 of our speculations must be a less rigorous one. 
 We can but ask that they give a coherent view 
 of the facts in their broad features, and that, to 
 some extent at least, they impart a satisfying 
 meaning to them. 
 
 The word experience is general, and the thing itself 
 has manifold forms. And the phenomena of religion, 
 though regarded in their entirety, only make part 
 of a larger whole. In other words, they constitute 
 a special phase of general experience. The task of 
 interpreting the latter falls to philosophy in the 
 wider sense of the word. Metaphysics has to in- 
 vestigate the meaning of experience : it has to 
 bring out its implications and to show the ulti- 
 mate grounds and presuppositions on which it rests. 
 Philosophy endeavours to carry out the principles 
 thus reached, so as to make it clear that the 
 universe, or experience in all its aspects, is a 
 coherent and continuous whole. Even though there 
 be irreducible elements in experience which refuse 
 to be fused by the thought-process, philosophy cer- 
 
Meaning of Religion. 211 
 
 tainly cannot assume this to begin with, and can 
 only follow persistently the plan of trying to 
 think things out. The test we apply to the 
 Weltanschauung which it offers us will be the 
 internal consistency of its principles as well as 
 their consistency with the world as experienced. 
 Do things both in their individuality and their 
 connexions receive their due in the interpretation 
 which is put upon them? 
 
 As we pointed out in an earlier essay, the 
 Philosophy of Keligion, which is engaged with a 
 special phase of experience, must always be de- 
 pendent on general Philosophy, which deals with 
 the larger problem. On the other hand, owing 
 to the limitation of its outlook, it has the pheno- 
 mena of the religious consciousness more fully and 
 directly in view. This concentration of interest 
 makes it less likely to sacrifice the claims of the 
 part to those of the whole. Hence the Philosophy 
 of Religion, alive to the large and systematic aims 
 of Philosophy, but also cognisant of the needs of 
 its own special subject-matter, seeks to mediate 
 between the demands of the speculative and the 
 spiritual mind. It goes without saying that the 
 Philosophy of Eeligion is inspired by no apologetic 
 interest : its exclusive interest is the truth. But 
 it recognises that religion is a normal aspect of 
 human life, and has to be interpreted by the 
 
212 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 philosopher. With perfect fairness it seeks to bring 
 the point of view of reason into comparison with 
 that of faith, and dispassionately asks how far they 
 can be reconciled. And even though he believes 
 that the result of the inquiry can only be pro- 
 visional and not final, the thinker who cares for 
 the interests of reason, and likewise appreciates the 
 claims of religion, will not wish to evade the 
 problem which a Philosophy of Religion presents. 
 In entering on the task he is in a sense only 
 honestly trying to come to an understanding with 
 himself. 
 
 The need of an inquiry of the kind is both real 
 and urgent, and the modern world has in the main 
 recognised this. Both Philosophy and Religion set 
 before us a view of the universe, and as a rule 
 their views are in somewhat sharp contrast. Phil- 
 osophy introduces us to a reasoned theory of reality, 
 and tries to unfold in logical sequence the steps 
 which lead to its conclusions. Religion, again, is 
 not interested in rigid deduction, and it encourages 
 its votaries to believe where they cannot prove. 
 Nor does it hesitate to follow the less rigorous 
 method of analogy in its interpretation of the 
 ground of experience, and it upholds the claim of 
 faith that the supreme Reality must satisfy the 
 needs of man's spiritual nature. Religion centres 
 in spiritual experience, and the religious man finds 
 
Meaning of Religion. 213 
 
 the root of this experience in a personal relation 
 between himself and God. He indeed thinks and 
 speaks of God as the first Cause of all things, but 
 yet for him God is not merged in that which He 
 produces. He can fitly be addressed in prayer as 
 'Thou 1 ; and while His will is manifested in the 
 world, He is not identified with the world. For 
 Pantheism, though it frequently appears in the 
 history of religious development, is not a normal 
 expression of the religious consciousness. But when 
 we pass from Eeligion to Metaphysics a change 
 in the atmosphere is apparent. The philosopher 
 is chary of using human analogies in reference 
 to the ultimate ground of things, and sometimes 
 deliberately rejects them altogether. Instead of 
 God we hear rather of Substance, the Absolute, 
 the Idea : and even when the time-honoured name 
 is used, the connotation is commonly very different. 
 The God, for example, of Spinoza and the God of 
 the average worshipper stand for conceptions which 
 hardly have any common content. The source of 
 this diversity of meaning and tendency is the 
 difference of the interest which engrosses the specu- 
 lative and the religious mind. The philosopher aims 
 at unification of experience ; a final dualism in his 
 eyes spells defeat ; and he is anxious to show that 
 the differences in experience, which prompt the 
 ordinary man to rest in dualism, can ultimatelv 
 
214 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 be resolved into a monism. So for him the 
 Supreme Keality is to be found within the world- 
 process rather than without it. The religious in- 
 terest, in contrast, centres in a personal relation- 
 ship between the human and the divine. The 
 existence of this relationship seems incompatible 
 with a Deity who has no reality apart from the 
 process of experience in which He is manifested. 
 Accordingly, the religious spirit clings to the be- 
 lief that God somehow transcends the world. 1 
 
 It is natural, then, that the view of the world 
 presented by philosophy should distinguish itself 
 somewhat sharply from that of religion. And as 
 religion lays claim to be true as well as philosophy, 
 it is not surprising that the attitude of the one to 
 the other should often be hostile. On the one side, 
 religion objects that philosophy does not give due 
 heed to the demands of the spiritual consciousness, 
 that it is dominated by an interest too prevailingly 
 intellectual, and that, in consequence, it sets up 
 pale abstractions in the place of living reality. On 
 the other side, philosophy retorts that religion un- 
 fairly exalts one aspect of experience, that it evades 
 the duty of examining its presuppositions and test- 
 ing their consistency with the larger whole of 
 things, and that it uses analogies without consider- 
 
 1 We are, of course, speaking here of religion in its highly devel- 
 oped forms. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 2 1 5 
 
 ing whether they are really applicable or not. So 
 we often find philosophical thinkers speaking of 
 religious beliefs with a certain tone of superiority 
 and condescension. For these beliefs, they hold, 
 are at best only figurative thoughts which must 
 be criticised and transformed ere they can seriously 
 claim to be true. And it' is one of the blessings 
 of a philosophical culture, that it delivers the mind 
 from bondage to those idols which the common 
 people take for truth. Eeligious persons, again, 
 are prone to regard philosophy and its obstinate 
 questioning with suspicion and dislike. Even when 
 it approaches, extending the olive branch, they mis- 
 trust it, and doubt the wisdom of an alliance. For 
 some of them complain, and not without some show 
 of justice, that although philosophy uses the same 
 words it does not mean the same thing as they 
 do. Others are bold to declare that the truths of 
 faith are of a different order from those of reason, 
 and do not require to be buttressed by thought 
 even if that were possible. Hence a Philosophy 
 of Keligion, in so far as it seeks to bring about a 
 rapprochement between the two, is not likely to 
 win the unqualified approval of either. On the 
 side of religion, at all events, there are reasons 
 why one should not expect too much. For the 
 latter has, without due criticism, as the philosopher 
 is inclined to think, taken religious experience and 
 
2 1 6 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 historic facts as a basis on which to build its own 
 interpretation of the world, which it terms theology. 
 Yet whatever elements of value theology may con- 
 tain and that it does contain them we do not 
 in the least deny it is too much to expect the 
 philosopher to accept its conclusions as they 
 stand. Theology sets out from authoritative pre- 
 suppositions, while philosophy requires that they be 
 reasoned. And the speculative thinker does not 
 find in the theologian's results either the internal 
 consistency, or the harmony with the larger whole 
 of experience, which he sets before him as a standard. 
 It is therefore inevitable that the view he develops 
 should call for some concessions on the part of 
 those who hold the traditional doctrines which 
 have become associated with religion. To the 
 theologically - minded person this criticism will 
 commonly appear too drastic, and the critic's rever- 
 ence for the past too slender. Ignoring that pro- 
 cess of change which is * without observation,' and 
 which makes a 'form of sound words' mean one 
 thing to an earlier and another to a later age, he 
 sees in the philosopher only the representative of 
 an ephemeral fashion of speculation who sets him- 
 self to judge venerable and time-tried doctrines. 
 Such an objection is to be expected, and the 
 religious philosopher must be prepared to hear it 
 urged against his results. At the same time, he 
 
Meaning of Religion. 217 
 
 does well to remember that his own gospel is not 
 likely to be the end of all wisdom. New thoughts 
 grow out of the growing experience of the world ; 
 and the speculations which represent the mind of 
 one generation have to be remoulded to satisfy 
 another. If a theology becomes old and needs to 
 be reconstructed, a philosophy is not exempt from 
 the same law of progress. 
 
 With these preliminary remarks we go on to 
 indicate the method we propose to follow in this 
 important part of our investigation. 
 
 To interpret religion speculatively signifies that 
 we try to show its ultimate basis, and to explain 
 its meaning and function in the real universe. 
 The question is not simply how religion works, 
 how it is related to other activities, and what 
 its value is in the life of individual and people. 
 However profitable such an inquiry might be, at 
 the end of it we should still be ignorant of the 
 final truth about religion, and whether it had any 
 ultimate justification. We have to go deeper than 
 this, and must try to show, if we can, what is 
 the reality which lies behind and gives meaning 
 to the phenomena of religion. The problem in 
 technical language is ontological : and plainly the 
 reality which belongs to religion can only be 
 reached through the determination of the nature 
 of reality in general. Now it seems to me that 
 
2 1 8 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 the most fruitful line we can follow in an investi- 
 gation of this kind is to argue back inferentially 
 from experience to its ground. By ground is not 
 meant cause in the purely scientific sense, but 
 those fundamental and real conditions which lie 
 behind the realm in which cause and effect operate. 
 But experience is a large word, and it has two 
 generally recognised aspects, the subjective and 
 the objective. To these correspond the spheres 
 of Psychology and Cosmology. Our regressive 
 movement towards a common ground must have 
 regard to both aspects of experience. We must 
 keep in view alike the facts of nature and of 
 mind in attempting to define the character of 
 their ultimate basis. 
 
 It will be said that we are here making an 
 assumption the assumption that the ordinary 
 distinction between subject and object has some 
 warrant in the nature of things. This is true, 
 but we base our right to do so >on the epistemo- 
 logical discussion in the preceding essay. It was 
 there argued that outer experience implied realities 
 which were not created by the perceptive subject. 
 The point now before us is the nature of the 
 ground which these substances presuppose. But 
 to whatever result the discussion of this problem 
 may lead us, it will not be a final and complete 
 determination of the World - Ground. We must 
 
Meaning of Religion. 219 
 
 bring our result into relation with the implica- 
 tions of inner experience, with the realm of self- 
 consciousness and those personal aspirations and 
 ethical values which form an essential aspect of 
 the self-conscious life. The result will show how 
 far we can hope to determine the final ground of 
 all experience, alike from the point of view of form 
 and of content. We shall then have to consider 
 the ground in the definite aspect in which it is 
 the basis of the religious consciousness. The last 
 step will be to suggest a view of the meaning of 
 religion and its development, founded on the con- 
 clusions we have come to on the nature of the 
 finite spirit and its relation to God, the ultimate 
 ground of all things. 
 
 Our first task, then, is to examine the implications 
 of outer experience, and try to determine the nature 
 of the reality which it presupposes as its ground 
 and condition. The argument in the preceding 
 paper led us to the view that experience is a historic 
 development, in which we can distinguish sensitive, 
 perceptual, and conceptual stages. Only at the 
 latter level, and as the result of the generalised 
 thinking which intersubjective intercourse makes 
 possible, is the universal distinction of inner and 
 outer elaborated and fixed. But the distinction 
 drawn by subjective thinking is the interpretation 
 of a real difference. The objective world must be 
 
220 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 more than a generalised notion which takes form as 
 the result of the interplay of many minds. If not, 
 obvious facts of experience remain unexplained. 
 The question then arises, What are the realities 
 which we must presuppose are involved in the pre- 
 sentation in experience of that which we call nature ? 
 As we saw already, we cannot accept the scientific 
 conception of atoms or for that part the more 
 recent analysis of the atom into electrons as the 
 answer. For that which implies the process of 
 ideal construction cannot at the same time be that 
 which lies beyond it. And everything which has 
 dimensions and sensible qualities involves the work 
 of mind. The fact of an external world seemed 
 best explained on the theory that it meant the 
 existence of spiritual centres of experience, con- 
 tinuous in character with the human ego, but 
 standing at lower levels of development. A system 
 of monads acting and reacting on each other, and 
 giving rise in self-conscious minds to the interpre- 
 tation of reality as a variously qualified world of 
 things, we took to be the basis both of perceptual 
 and conceptual experience. 
 
 We shall not repeat the arguments by which we 
 sought to defend this pluralism against objections 
 more or less serious. Our aim now is to find out 
 how far we can determine the ultimate ground of 
 such a system of spiritual substances. The phrase 
 
Meaning of Religion. 221 
 
 " spiritual substance " is used here, it will be recol- 
 lected, for that which is a centre of experience, and 
 which in some way has a being-for-self. To call 
 these centres causalities or activities, as Wundt does, 
 is rather a matter of terminology than of real differ- 
 ence in meaning. For we cannot think of activity 
 without thinking of that which maintains itself and 
 has a being for itself. A formless and indeterminate 
 activity could not explain anything. If represented 
 relations and qualities imply the interaction of reals, 
 these reals must be something for themselves ere 
 they can be something to one another. Kelations 
 without a basis of relation melt away in the unsub- 
 stantial void. But while the monad is not con- 
 stituted by its connexion with other monads, its 
 character can only become explicit by its interaction 
 with them. Development of reality as experience 
 is not of the abstract unit, but is always by a syn- 
 thesis, and the reference to self becomes explicit 
 and fully defined through reference to another. 
 But while interaction thus gives articulation to 
 the self, it cannot create those centres of experi- 
 ence which are necessary to the development of 
 experience. 
 
 When we speak of the relations of the reals to 
 one another, we must bear in mind that the term 
 implies ideational activity, and this has its root in 
 the action and reaction of substances. In other 
 
222 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 words, the growth of experience is based on the 
 activity which exists between its real elements. 
 To call this process an interaction of wills, as has 
 been done, is no doubt, from one point of view, 
 open to objection : for the term will has a special- 
 ised psychological meaning, and implies a process of 
 mental construction. But we must speak of the 
 centres of experience as active, and the right to 
 employ the notion of activity in this connexion has 
 been called in question. The point is important, 
 for in the long-run our title to speak of God as 
 active is involved in it. The gist of the objection 
 to the use of the term in Metaphysics is, that it is 
 only a working conception in the domain of psy- 
 chology. It contains, we are told, assumptions and 
 involves contradictions ; and while it may be con- 
 veniently used to describe psychological phenomena, 
 there is no ground for treating it as ultimately real. 
 Now it is true that the word activity, as we use it 
 in reference to ourselves, stands for something more 
 than we are immediately conscious of. The feeling 
 of inner vation, the sense of power going from us 
 into act, is not simple, but implies experience, and so 
 expectation of the result. That is to say, it involves 
 generalisation. But all this may be true and yet the 
 idea of activity need not rest on an illusion. Indeed 
 the fact that we use, and cannot help using, the 
 idea, is so far evidence that it stands for something 
 
Meaning of Religion. 223 
 
 real. Deny it of the self, and you are compelled 
 to attribute it to the ideas which belong to the self. 
 Suppose for the moment that activity is no more 
 than a mental fiction which we find it convenient 
 to employ, then our experience is reduced to a 
 series of presentations without purposive connexion, 
 and we ourselves are only the ineffectual spectators 
 of a drama in which we fondly dream that we play 
 a part. It is certainly in point to urge that our 
 whole practical life becomes unintelligible on this 
 assumption. If there could be such a thing as a 
 self purely passive, the development of experience 
 in it would be impossible. On the other hand, it 
 may well be that the reason why we are not able to 
 know ourselves immediately as active, just lies in 
 the fact that we are dealing with something primi- 
 tive and inseparable from experience in any form. 
 We cannot instinctively distinguish the feeling of 
 activity from that of pure passivity, for the latter 
 is not a possible experience ; and when we try to 
 analyse the notion, the thing itself is presupposed 
 by the process of analysis. I cannot see that 
 because the concept activity implies mental con- 
 struction, it is therefore not based upon what is 
 real : this would only be a valid inference if such 
 construction could be shown to involve what is 
 fundamentally false. It will, I suppose, be agreed 
 that the self, as we habitually use the term, is an 
 
224 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 ideal construction : if for that reason you say it is a 
 fiction, then your very assertion cannot ultimately 
 be valid. The pressure of practical life always 
 corrects such vagaries of thought. And as regards 
 activity, we cannot banish it from the real universe 
 without inconsistency. 
 
 It would no doubt be inconsistent to transfer the 
 notion of activity from the region of experience to 
 a system of dead elements ; for there is no inner 
 connexion between personal experience and that 
 which has no being for itself. The objection does 
 not hold in the case of a system of monads conceived 
 as centres of experience, though on a lower level 
 than that of thinking subjects. In such a system 
 action and passion express the nature of beings 
 which are for themselves. For even passivity is 
 not intelligible apart from reaction and self- 
 maintenance. 
 
 If, then, we have so far vindicated our right to 
 speak of active spiritual substances, we must now 
 ask, What is the ground of their interaction ? What 
 makes it possible ? For the argument has been 
 that the centres of experience have a being of 
 their own : they are not abstract qualities, or mere 
 appearances, which are really merged in a whole. 
 How, then, do individuals come to be manifested 
 as an interconnected system? As is well known, 
 Leibniz refused to conceive the problem in this 
 
Meaning of Religion. 225 
 
 way. Following the lead of a logic according to 
 which in every true proposition all predicates were 
 analytically contained in the subject, he affirmed 
 that each monad contained within itself the source 
 or ground of all its changes. No monad interacts 
 with another, but each ideally represents the uni- 
 verse. And though Leibniz extends his principle 
 of Sufficient Eeason in order to find a ground for 
 the monads in God, the inference under these cir- 
 cumstances lacks cogency, and it is difficult to see 
 what essential office Deity fills in a universe so 
 constituted. But the Leibnizian conception of the 
 monad is an impossible one. How a simple sub- 
 stance can evolve from itself the countless differences 
 of experience we are not told. And the whole work 
 of intersubjective intercourse in building up ex- 
 perience must be interpreted, on this theory, in so 
 artificial a way as to be quite unconvincing, not to 
 say incredible. 
 
 If it be agreed that we cannot eliminate the 
 idea of interaction between the spiritual substances 
 which are the basis of the material world as ex- 
 perienced, we may now go on to ask, What are the 
 implications of the process ? In this way we shall 
 try to carry out our regressive movement towards 
 the ultimate ground of things. It will be obvious 
 that we are following the line laid down by Lotze, 
 whose carefully reasoned statement has had an 
 
 p 
 
226 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 important influence on subsequent thought. The 
 view which commends itself to us may be made 
 clearer by considering the adequacy of the solution 
 offered by Lotze. In his { Metaphysics ' he examines 
 the idea of a transeunt operation the passage of an 
 influence from one independent real to another 
 and finds it unintelligible and contradictory. 1 It will 
 not be denied that the transference of some inexplic- 
 able force or energy from one thing to another is a 
 fiction of the mind. Every effort we make to think 
 out what the action of one thing on another means, 
 ends with the confession that the reals between 
 which the operation takes place cannot be absolutely 
 independent of each other to begin with. Therefore, 
 argues Lotze, we must abandon the notion of in- 
 dependent substances. Take the two substances 
 A and B, the change of A into Aa is accompanied 
 by a change of B into Bb. And this is only explic- 
 able if the real being of both A and B is M, and 
 if the change in M called a evokes as compensa- 
 tion that modification of M we call b. What popular 
 thought regards as an external process between A 
 and B is reduced on examination to an immanent 
 operation in M. As Lotze himself says, " The 
 Pluralism with which our view of the universe 
 began has to give place to a Monism." 2 It is thus 
 
 1 Metaphysics (Eng. trans,), bk. i. chap. vi. 
 
 2 Ibid., i. 165. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 227 
 
 difficult to avoid the conclusion that in the last 
 resort the monads are virtually reduced to qualifica- 
 tions of the one real Being. 1 Lotze certainly says 
 that, if interaction is to be possible, all elements 
 "must be regarded as parts of a single and real 
 being." At the same time, his persistent endeavour 
 is to maintain the uniqueness and individuality of 
 everything that can be called a self. But if we 
 are to hold to the latter principle, then the interac- 
 tion between A and B must be something for both 
 A and B. Yet the nerve of the foregoing argument 
 is that the interaction takes place because A and B 
 are parts of the same Being M, in which alone 
 the process has meaning. It is conceivable that 
 some one might urge that the difference exists 
 within the unity, but that conceptual thinking 
 cannot explain how it does so. But though this 
 plea is not always to be made light of, in the 
 present case it is not satisfactory. For the difficulty 
 is due to the exclusive claim of the hypothetical M, 
 put forward in explanation of the fact of interaction. 
 If we are to believe a recent writer, 2 this impasse 
 is the natural doom which overtakes realism in 
 ^very form. Either all is unity, or else there are 
 
 1 Cp. the remark of Mr F. H. Bradley in his ' Appearance and 
 Reality,' 1st edition, p. 118, "the attentive reader of Lotze must, I 
 think, have found it hard to discover why individual selves with him 
 are more than phenomenal adjectives." 
 
 2 Eoyce, The World and the Individual, vol. i. p. 112. 
 
228 7"he ultimate Basis and 
 
 " no linkages." Here the most wary voyager can 
 steer no middle course between Scylla and Charyb- 
 dis. The only choice is an all-inclusive unity or 
 eternally isolated individuals. To this one might 
 reply that it is no doubt possible so to state the 
 case for realism, that there would seem to be no 
 escape from one horn or the other of the dilemma 
 which is here thrust before us. But many realists 
 will fail to recognise their own likeness in the 
 picture which Prof. Eoyce has drawn for them. 
 In point of fact, few would seriously contend that 
 individual reals, on whatever level of development, 
 are eternally complete and self-sufficing. The self- 
 sufficing individual in any form is a fiction : the 
 connexion of individuals with one another shows 
 that they all depend on a common ground, and 
 this makes possible that lively interaction by which 
 they evolve their distinctive character. The special 
 point we have to consider is, whether what Prof. 
 Koyce terms linkage , or as we put it, interaction, 
 is not possible save on the assumption that the 
 ground is a unity in which all individuality is 
 really absorbed. For, as a consequence, this in 
 its turn renders unintelligible the distinctive dif- 
 ference which separates the experience of one 
 self from that of another. To put the matter 
 more definitely. We postulate individual reals or 
 spiritual substances to avoid the inevitable con- 
 
Meaning of Religion. 229 
 
 tradiction of supposing that nature is only an 
 ideal construction. The action and passion out of 
 which experience grows must be viewed in terms 
 of the inner life of these substances, otherwise we 
 remain outside the region of individual experience 
 altogether. And on the other hand, interaction 
 between centres of experience would be impossible, 
 if there were not some inner bond of connexion 
 between them. A ground which is merely external 
 does not explain anything. For then in postulating 
 M to explain the interaction of A with B, you 
 leave unexplained the interaction of both A and B 
 with M. The conclusion appears unavoidable that 
 the World -ground must in one aspect be an im- 
 manent one, and is somehow present in all the 
 individuals which it connects. But again, if in 
 the interests of unity you merge the differences in 
 an identity, you reduce them to an illusion, or at 
 all events to an appearance ; and you leave yourself 
 unable to give any valid reason why there should 
 be even the semblance of individuality in the 
 universe. This objection may be pertinently urged 
 against a system like that of Spinoza, and against 
 the views of Mr Bradley in our own day. An 
 Absolute such as Mr Bradley presents to us may 
 fulfil the office of a cid de sac into which intract- 
 able matter is flung ; it certainly does not offer 
 any consistent explanation of the evolution of 
 
230 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 experience. After all, we live and act sufficiently 
 well in the world ; and if thought finds the simplest 
 processes of experience riddled with contradictions, 
 the presumption is that there is something wrong 
 with the thought. Nor is it more than a tour de 
 force to tell us that the shreds and tatters left by 
 dialectic are, in a way we can never understand, 
 woven into a harmony in the Absolute. In the 
 interests of experience itself we must therefore 
 refuse to follow this course. 
 
 The problem which the facts set before us is 
 this. Can we think of a ground which is at once 
 immanent in all individual centres of experience, 
 and at the same time does not reduce these centres 
 to mere appearance? Is it possible to conceive a 
 connecting activity which explains the inter- 
 dependence of spiritual substances and still leaves 
 to them a being of their own ? This condition can 
 only be fulfilled by a ground which is both im- 
 manent and transcendent, a ground which, while 
 it unites individuals, has also a being for itself, 
 and so always distinguishes itself from the elements 
 it connects. And if there be evidence of such a 
 type of connexion, we need not hesitate to refer 
 to it in the solution of our problem, even though 
 we cannot think out in detail its mode of operation. 
 But at the same time I grant that a type of unity, 
 illustrated in experience, cannot adequately describe 
 
Meaning of Religion. 231 
 
 that which is the ground of experience. With this 
 proviso I go on to suggest that in the idea of soul 
 there is a helpful notion for the purpose we have 
 in hand. To some, perhaps, the conception will 
 seem threadbare, calling to mind the superficial 
 philosophy of Pope : 
 
 " All are but parts of one stupendous whole, 
 Whose body nature is and God the soul." 
 
 We shall, however, only be antiquated and super- 
 ficial if we take up the idea blindly and use it 
 without examining it to discern its true import. 
 We have nothing to do here, it may be well to say, 
 with any theories about the nature of soul in the 
 narrower sense. For we are now using the word in 
 its broader meaning, in its biological and not in its 
 theological significance. What we are mainly con- 
 cerned with is the kind of unity, the sort of inter- 
 connexion disclosed in living things. In its simplest 
 forms life involves a central activity, which is 
 revealed in the process of assimilation and the 
 capacity to react on stimulus. There is a sense in 
 which all life - activity is purposive, for it means 
 selection and subordination of elements in the fulfil- 
 ment of function, and it implies the power to reject 
 what is alien to the unity which it maintains. The 
 question of consciously willed ends does not of course 
 arise here : and if we term the central activity will, 
 
232 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 because it is purposive, we must bear in mind that 
 we are dealing with something on a lower level than 
 human volition. The fact remains that, from the 
 humblest unicellular organism to the most complex 
 and highly differentiated animal body, a central will 
 or soul connects and dominates all the elements. 
 If you assert there is no such principle, then you 
 have the hopeless task of explaining how, by 
 mechanical action and reaction, the highly special- 
 ised organs of the body have become reciprocally 
 means and end to one another, and subserve the 
 interest of the whole. The attempt to solve the 
 problem of organic growth in this way fails, because 
 it has to assume what it ought to explain. In the 
 simplest form of life an immanent activity is in- 
 volved, and it is this central will which builds up 
 the organism. This active principle brings all the 
 elements into closest interaction, and yet allows to 
 each organ its own peculiar function and meaning 
 in the whole. It at once gives the parts their 
 systematic arrangement, and operates as the inward 
 bond between them. We cannot indeed make clear 
 to ourselves in thought the precise way in which 
 this interconnexion is realised : we are not able to 
 lay bare the modus operandi of the inner activity. 
 Certainly we do not do so by generalising and call- 
 ing the whole process a category. Nevertheless, it 
 is important to know that experience contains this 
 
Meaning of Religion. 233 
 
 type of unity, and we are justified in considering 
 how far it may offer us suggestions in dealing with 
 the problem we have before us. For we are seeking 
 a principle which will connect the various individual 
 centres of experience without at the same time sup- 
 pressing their individuality. And in life the central 
 will, which has a reality of its own, so correlates the 
 changing elements on which it works that a rela- 
 tively stable system emerges, in which each organ 
 has an individual office and is likewise intimately 
 linked to all the rest. In other words, the soul is 
 not an expression simply for the interior harmony 
 of the living being, but the formative ground which 
 brings about the harmony. It is the dominant 
 power which builds up the organism and manifests 
 itself in it. 
 
 Is it not possible, then, that the principle which 
 obtains in the microcosm has its counterpart in the 
 macrocosm ? May not a supreme Will be the ground 
 of all interactions between spiritual substances ? 
 May we not say that all centres of experience act 
 and react on each other in uniform ways through an 
 ever-present connecting agency, of which we see 
 a reflexion in the organic world ? In suggesting 
 this supreme activity we can at least say that such 
 a mode of action is not purely hypothetical, but is 
 really found within experience. It may be urged 
 that we are here transferring by analogy a principle 
 
234 The ultimate Basis ana 
 
 which works within experience to the ground of 
 experience as a whole. This is true. But no philos- 
 ophy can condemn the use of analogy altogether if 
 it is not to sink into scepticism, and the only 
 question is one of justification in the particular case. 
 Moreover, it is not disputed that the primal Will 
 cannot be simply a magnified copy of the will in 
 the physical organism. The represented world in 
 space and time grows out of the interactions of 
 individual substances, and we are here dealing with 
 the ground of that interaction. Hence it is neces- 
 sary to think of a fundamental Activity which is 
 neither temporal nor spatial. It will be said that 
 activity is inconceivable apart from time : and it 
 may be admitted that our ideally constructed notion 
 of activity seems to imply succession. On the other 
 hand, there must be, as we tried to show, a reality 
 behind the psychologically formed idea, and time, 
 from its very nature, cannot constitute activity but 
 presupposes it. Plainly the fundamental Will must 
 be distinguished from the will which is a mental 
 construction based on personal experience. For it 
 cannot depend for its exercise on an external occa- 
 sion, nor are we entitled to speak of it as an inter- 
 mittent agency, now operative and now quiescent. 
 We must not use language which would mean that 
 the centres of experience are scattered over space 
 and require a bridge to establish intercommunica- 
 
Meaning of Religion. 235 
 
 tion. One easily drops into the use of such 
 figurative speech, and to some extent it may be 
 unavoidable. Yet when the spatial element is 
 discarded, we are justified in thinking of the funda- 
 mental Will as present and operative in all monads 
 without having to overcome an external separation 
 of individuals. The purposive activity of the one 
 ever-present Ground makes possible the conative 
 synthesis by which each centre of experience 
 develops its meaning, and it also is the condition of 
 that systematic connexion of elements in virtue of 
 which an individual can have a function in the 
 whole. Kant spoke of thought through its cate- 
 gories building up the fair fabric of nature out of a 
 chaotic material somehow supplied to it. The con- 
 ception is unworkable, for thought cannot impose 
 its own laws upon an alien element. Nature could 
 not become an ordered whole for thought if an 
 invisible order did not lie behind it. The individual 
 reals which nature presupposes form, as we believe, 
 a spiritual system of which the active soul is an 
 omnipresent Will. The characterless and unrelated 
 "thing in itself" is a fiction which explains 
 nothing. 
 
 An ever-present, eternally operative Will, then, 
 we conclude to be the ground of the external 
 world as experienced. But this determination is 
 largely formal. Whether this Will is the will of 
 
236 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 a self-conscious, personal, and ethical being, we do 
 not know as yet. If there be justification for this 
 view, it must be found in the inner or subjective 
 development of experience. And to this aspect of 
 the question we must now turn. 
 
 In one sense all experience is subjective. It is 
 in a subject : every thing which is individual or 
 real has an inner life, and its qualities are repre- 
 sented in it by its own states. But in the narrower 
 sense that is subjective which not only is for itself 
 but is also conscious of itself. The stages of de- 
 velopment toward the latter are tolerably familiar. 
 From the dim self-feeling which reveals itself in 
 the instinctive assimilation of one element and the 
 rejection of another, there is an advance to the 
 level of sensation. When the inner development 
 makes selection and association of sense impressions 
 possible, we have the stage of perception. And 
 when the level of intellection and conceptual think- 
 ing is attained, the subject, now fully self-conscious, 
 finds himself confronted by an objective world. 
 From the lowest phase of " conative synthesis" to 
 the most fully developed conceptual thinking, the 
 objective world grows pari passu with the sub- 
 jective : with increasing differentiation between the 
 worlds there goes at the same time increasing con- 
 nexion. Hence the world of conceptual thought 
 is not to be treated as a secondary and less real 
 
Meaning of Religion. 237 
 
 world, which is somehow superimposed on a solid 
 reality. Thinking is experience in its most de- 
 veloped form, and is not the mere excrescence of 
 will, its tool in the endless struggle with fact. 
 Accordingly we may say that the world which takes 
 form as the outcome of intersubjective thinking is 
 the way in which reality reveals itself in us. 1 On 
 the other hand, thought and reality are not simply 
 to be identified. For thought, if the highest aspect 
 of experience, is not the whole of it, and develops 
 temporally out of experience which is not con- 
 ceptual. And experience in its widest sense is a 
 process which is not complete. The growth of 
 mind through intersubjective intercourse shows the 
 never-ceasing endeavour of thought to give more 
 adequate and perfect expression to experience. 
 The fact that the historic evolution of thought 
 is an endeavour, by a constant process of criticism 
 and reconstruction, to give a more perfect state- 
 
 1 Mr F. H. Bradley, laying stress on the negative and distinguish- 
 ing element in thought to the disadvantage of its positive and con- 
 necting aspect, finds it inherently inadequate to reality, and only 
 saves himself from complete scepticism by his doctrine of degrees of 
 reality. No one has more extravagantly depreciated thought than 
 Nietzsche in his latest writings. Vid. Orestano, 'Le Idee Fonda- 
 mentali di F. Nietzsche/ p. 305. " Parmenide ha detto : non si puo 
 pensare ci6 che non esiste. Nietzsche 6 pervenuto all altra estrem- 
 ita : ci6 che puo venir pensato dev'essere necessariamente una 
 finzione." 
 
 One is tempted to add that, if all thought be fiction, Nietzsche's 
 view of thought is itself fiction. 
 
238 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 ment of reality is a warning against any thorough- 
 going identification of the one with the other. A 
 connexion in thought will represent a real con- 
 nexion, if the material premises have been ade- 
 quately stated as logical premises to begin with. 1 
 Strict proof, as the establishment of necessary con- 
 nexion, is between given elements within experi- 
 ence, and does not reach to the ground of all 
 experience. 
 
 Hence the well-known attempts to prove the 
 existence of God by logical inference have no 
 proper cogency. To begin with, it is plain that 
 even were the reasoning valid, it would prove 
 very much less than those who used it hoped to 
 do. That which is commonly connoted by the 
 word God contains much more than the so-called 
 theistic proofs can yield in any case. There need 
 be no spiritual content in the idea of an External 
 Designer, a First Cause, or a most Keal Being. 
 Again, the Cosmological and Teleological arguments 
 assume that, from one element or aspect of ex- 
 perience, you can pass by a necessity of thought 
 to a reality which is the ground of all experience. 
 Yet here the necessity of thought, supposing that 
 it did exist, could not give as a conclusion a 
 Being who was not finite and limited. In the 
 
 1 " If the essential conditions of error are absent, what is taken 
 for real must be real." G. F. Stout, in ' Personal Idealism,' p. 35. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 239 
 
 Ontological proof, as Kant showed, the assumption 
 common to the different arguments, that necessity 
 of thought gives necessity of fact, is explicitly pre- 
 sented. But the important point is, that the argu- 
 ment becomes absolutely futile for the purpose on 
 hand at the point where it has any semblance of 
 validity. We contradict ourselves if we affirm that 
 being does not exist, and that there is a sum-total 
 of being it is meaningless to deny. But when we 
 go on to qualify this indeterminate Being to fit it 
 for the rdle of Deity, we have no guarantee that 
 the reality must conform to our idea, and to speak 
 of proof is absurd. 
 
 The Ontological proof, in its scholastic form, has 
 now become a matter of purely historical interest. 
 It may be well, however, to refer to a sugges- 
 tive if radical reconstruction of the argument by 
 Pfleiderer. Things, so Pfleiderer puts it, conform 
 to our ideas : the laws of nature are in harmony 
 with the laws of mind. The being of mind is not 
 identical with the being of nature, but the outer 
 and inner worlds are in correspondence. And how 
 is this ? The teleological inference is unavoidable ; 
 they have been adapted to one another. This 
 adaptation is due to God, the Supreme Keason, 
 who is the ground both of nature and mind. But 
 though we accepted this argument, it would not 
 prove that the common ground of both worlds was 
 
240 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 a self-conscious Person : * it would require to be 
 supplemented by the argument drawn from the 
 practical reason, as Pfleiderer would admit. But 
 the real difficulty is to suppose that the world of 
 thought and the world of things are divided in 
 the way suggested, so that the former is a kind 
 of duplicate of the latter. If the theory we have 
 already advanced is correct, there is no such 
 separation. Experience is continuous through all 
 its stages, and the laws of thought are only its 
 fullest development. There is no reality which is 
 not experience in some form. But others who 
 cannot accept this view will still find transcendental 
 realism unsatisfactory. And because it makes this 
 assumption, that nature and mind are two diverse 
 worlds which somehow correspond, Pfleiderer 7 s ver- 
 sion of the Ontological argument, it seems to me, 
 will not be generally convincing. You divide 
 reality as 'with a hatchet/ and then require a 
 bridge between the severed parts. Of the theistic 
 proofs as a whole, it may be said that it is just 
 in giving proofs that they fail. 
 
 At this point it will be best to state the result 
 to which our own course of thought has brought 
 us. We found it necessary to postulate a ground 
 
 1 E. Von Hartmann, who also accepts the principles of transcen- 
 dental realism, argues, as is well known, from the correspondence of 
 thought and being only to an unconscious World-ground. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 241 
 
 for the interaction of spiritual substances. An 
 active Soul or Will seemed the most satisfactory 
 conception of a ground which would make possible 
 the connexion of individual substances without 
 suppressing their individuality. But though we 
 postulate this we cannot turn the postulate into 
 a proof, for we are not able to show that the 
 ground on its part must issue or manifest itself 
 in a world of individual realities. We have now 
 to ask how far the developments of experience 
 through self-conscious subjects will warrant us 
 in giving further determination to the ground 
 postulated. 
 
 The cardinal fact in the subjective process of 
 experience is the fact of self-consciousness itself. 
 The whole realm of science, art, and religion has 
 unfolded itself in man because he is an active, 
 self-conscious being. The intellectual and spiritual 
 creations which make up the world in which man 
 lives and moves, are only possible for beings who 
 reflect upon themselves, who both relate themselves 
 to the object and distinguish themselves from it. 
 The importance of the fact of self - consciousness 
 has justified the stress which modern philosophy 
 has laid upon it. Nor should the fact that the 
 consciousness of self has been historically evolved 
 lead us to minimise its significance, or to dethrone 
 it from its central place in human experience. The 
 
 Q 
 
242 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 unfolding of individuality in its lower forms is 
 mediated, as we saw, by interaction between in- 
 dividuals. And the same law obtains at the stage 
 when individuality assumes a higher and more 
 complex shape. The friction of suitable materials 
 begets the spark. So the contact between selves, 
 the endless give and take between members of a 
 society of which language is the outcome, the 
 sharpening effect of social intercourse upon the 
 mind, have generated the light of self-knowledge. 
 The phrase sometimes used, "the socialised self," 
 at least reminds us how much the human ego 
 depends for its contents on the social system in 
 which it lives and moves. None the less an 
 account of the historical genesis of self-conscious- 
 ness does not solve the problem of its origin. 
 Social conditions are the means which develop it, 
 but they do not create it. 
 
 If we rule the purely materialistic explanation 
 out of court, we may still be told that self-con- 
 sciousness is the product of unconscious will. The 
 will creates the intelligence as its instrument, the 
 means to its ends. Yet is this really possible ? If 
 D an unconscious will becomes S a thinking will, 
 and we exclude the supposition that D is potentially 
 S, then the reason for the development must be 
 sought in the factual experiences by which D is 
 qualified. Let D then interact with A, B, and C : 
 
Meaning of Religion. 243 
 
 it will respond to these changes in its environment 
 by becoming D S, D S', D S". The question is, How 
 can 8, S', S", which represent the reactions of D, in 
 turn so modify D that it becomes S, a self-conscious 
 subject ? Stated thus, we can see that the supposi- 
 tion involves a false abstraction. For the states 
 symbolised as S, S', S" have no meaning in them- 
 selves but only as expressions of D. And no 
 repetition or variation of these states could modify 
 D in any way that was not the utterance of its 
 own character. We can only make intelligible to 
 ourselves the transformation of D into S by sup- 
 posing that it really represents the inner develop- 
 ment of D, of which 8, S', S" may be the occasion 
 but cannot be the cause. Stated generally, while 
 self-consciousness can be conceived as the fullest 
 development of an individual substance, it can 
 never be consistently thought as superimposed upon 
 it by conditions acting from without. If uncon- 
 scious will in the process of experience becomes 
 thinking will, then it must have possessed the 
 character which could be quickened to this high 
 issue. If you deny this, you must take up the 
 untenable position, as it seems to us, that the 
 outcome of development has no necessary relation 
 to its beginning, and then you abandon any prin- 
 ciple of explanation, and your assertion ceases to 
 be more than an ex cathedra statement. It may 
 
244 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 be true, as we see in cases of degeneration, that 
 the Aristotelian principle that what is vo-repov 
 yeVeo-ei is TrpoTtpov <f)V(TL is not always applicable. 
 But in normal development there must be con- 
 tinuity between the germ and the fruit, and we 
 read the meaning of the beginning in the light of 
 the end. In the general evolution of experience 
 sub- conscious preceded self-conscious life, and in the 
 history of the individual person the same order is 
 repeated. And it seems clear that the only way 
 we can put a meaning into sub-conscious mental 
 activity is by regarding it in connexion with its 
 developed result in self-consciousness. 
 
 We ought to keep these facts in view when we 
 consider what must be the character of the ultimate 
 Ground which has made possible the development 
 in time of self-conscious beings. For the supreme 
 Will, which conditions the interactions of all in- 
 dividuals, also makes possible the far more com- 
 plex and highly organised system of intercourse 
 termed social life, the medium out of which self- 
 consciousness emerges in time. To the same im- 
 manent activity we must trace that character in 
 the individual real which makes the fullest ex- 
 pression of its nature to be self-consciousness. And 
 the point is whether a ground which is Will and 
 nothing more can be the source of a character 
 which has a development so momentous. The 
 
Meaning of Religion. 245 
 
 answer must be the same as that already given. 
 If individual centres of experience were will and 
 nothing more, they could not evolve self-conscious- 
 ness : and just as little can we suppose that a 
 universal and unconscious Will created by its 
 activity self-conscious subjects. No doubt some 
 have asserted this to be true, but the assertion 
 in this case raises grave practical as well as 
 theoretical difficulties. We live and act on the 
 assumption that the self-conscious world, which is 
 likewise the world of values, is the fullest develop- 
 ment of reality. Yet if naked Will is the ground 
 and creator of this world, then an unconscious 
 principle is the source of all value, and is itself 
 the highest value. It is only consistent that those 
 who hold this speculative theory should treat the 
 kingdom of self-conscious spirits as a lapse from the 
 unconscious, and advocate a revaluation in the inter- 
 ests of pessimism. The radical contradiction between 
 this Weltanschauung and our most deep-rooted per- 
 sonal instincts is a strong argument against it. 
 
 No doubt, although the fundamental Will be 
 self-conscious, it is not possible for us to define 
 the way in which it is the active ground of self- 
 consciousness in individual centres of experience. 1 
 
 1 "When Leibniz, for example (' Monadologie,' 47), speaks of his 
 monads as " des figurations continuelles de la divinite"," the language 
 can only be taken as metaphorical. 
 
246 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 On the other hand, if our regressive movement only 
 brings us to an unconscious ground of experience, 
 the ground is plainly insufficient, for it cannot 
 impart that which is alien to itself. The nature 
 of developed experiences therefore justifies the 
 postulate, that the Will, which is the ground of 
 all centres of experience, is the Will of a conscious 
 Self. 
 
 At this point I will notice an objection that may 
 be directed against the argument. We shall be 
 told, perhaps, that if the World -Ground is self- 
 conscious, it may be conceived as purely immanent 
 without being open to the objections previously 
 urged against a purely immanent Ground. The 
 difficulties we raised before, it will be contended, 
 were plausible just owing to the fact that we were 
 taking experience at too low a level. Follow it out 
 to its fullest expression in self-consciousness, and 
 you will find you have a principle which duly 
 differentiates subject and object, universal and par- 
 ticular, and still contains them in an inclusive 
 unity. We can only say again that the generalised 
 experience which gives us an objective world is 
 only intelligible on the assumption that it pre- 
 supposes reals which are not adjectives. To put 
 it generally, all experience does not fall within the 
 aelf-conscious subject. It may be said that this is 
 true of the finite self-consciousness, but it does not 
 
Meaning of Religion. 247 
 
 hold of the Absolute, which, while giving full scope 
 to differences, maintains itself in them. If this be 
 so, then, as the individual self -consciousness falls 
 within the whole of reality, the Absolute self must 
 contain all such selves within itself. Can the 
 Universal Self and individual selves be so related 
 and continue to possess what is claimed for them ? 
 In other words, can the Absolute Self and the 
 finite self, so conceived, be each for itself as well 
 as for the other? It is easy to speak vaguely of 
 a Universal Self which is the unity of all particular 
 selves, but those who use this language are not 
 always careful to explain exactly what they mean. 
 I believe those who adopt this standpoint must be 
 driven in the end to accept one of two alternatives : 
 either the Universal Self alone is real and finite 
 selves are an illusion, or the finite selves only are 
 real and the Universal Self is a fiction. For if the 
 Absolute Self S exists in the individual selves 
 a, fe, c, it must be in each of them. Yet it cannot 
 be in a, or 6, or c, taken in isolation, but only as 
 entering into the whole, or it would not unify 
 them. The fact that a, b, and c are for S, which 
 is a supreme and inclusive self, because it unites 
 all finite selves in a totality outside of which it 
 does not itself exist, forbids us to suppose that 
 the claim of a, 6, and c to be for themselves over 
 against S, is anything but an illusion. For in the 
 
248 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 very assertion of themselves they refuse to merge 
 wholly in S. I cannot see that under these con- 
 ditions a, 6, and c could be anything more than 
 the states of consciousness in which the Supreme 
 Subject expresses its activity. 1 Again, if you persist 
 under these conditions in maintaining the personal- 
 ity of individuals, the unreality of the Absolute 
 Self becomes just as inevitable. This is well 
 brought out in a very clear and candid discussion 
 by Mr J. E. M'Taggart. 2 He holds that personal 
 selves are the fundamental differentiations of the 
 Absolute, and fall of course entirely within its 
 unity. The Absolute is in each individual self, but 
 also outside it, and therefore is for it. But we 
 cannot say that individual selves are also for the 
 Absolute, since there is nothing outside the Ab- 
 solute. Hence Mr M'Taggart comes to the con- 
 clusion that the Absolute cannot be a person (unless 
 in some utterly incomprehensible way). It is really 
 a system of selves, a society of eternally existing 
 spirits. This bold discussion of the problem will 
 probably do good, because it sets forth in a vivid 
 light the inherent difficulties of the view that an 
 
 1 It is noteworthy that Paulsen, in his endeavour to round off 
 his pluralism in a monism, uses this notion. We may conceive, he 
 tells us, the relation of the Absolute to individual spirits after the 
 analogy of the thinking subject to its states ('Einleitung in die 
 Philosophic,' p. 250). 
 
 2 Studies in the Hegelian Cosmology, chap. iii. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 249 
 
 Absolute Self is the immanent unity of all finite 
 selves. But the objections to Mr M'Taggart's own 
 theory are, to say the least, very serious. If, as he 
 seems to say, the only reality is the fundamental 
 differentiations of the Absolute, self-conscious sub- 
 jects, what are those centres of experience which 
 are not self-conscious? How are we to interpret 
 nature? Fundamental differentiations of the Ab- 
 solute can neither begin nor pass away. Has every 
 person, then, existed from all eternity ? The Ab- 
 solute, it must be supposed, is perfect ; yet how 
 can this be reconciled with the fact that error, 
 weakness, and sin attach to its constituent dif- 
 ferentiations ? That kind of apotheosis of the 
 individual spirit which Mr M'Taggart's theory 
 seems to imply has no warrant in facts. And it 
 is in conflict with an essential aspect of religious 
 experience. We conclude on the general question 
 that the idea of a Supreme Self -consciousness, 
 which is the purely immanent unity of all indi- 
 vidual selves, is inconsistent with what is involved 
 in the nature of the self. 
 
 But there is one other theory which I should like 
 to consider in this connexion before going further. 
 It is that of Lotze. He holds, as we know, that 
 the Absolute is the one real Being, but he also tries 
 to show that it is personal, or something more and 
 better than personal. No competent thinker will 
 
250 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 suppose that the divine Personality is nothing 
 more than a magnified copy of the human. There 
 are limitations involved in the latter which cannot 
 be transferred to the former; and popular religion 
 very commonly forgets this. On any view, how- 
 ever, that is not personal which cannot use the 
 pronoun 'I,' which is not self-conscious. If, then, 
 it can be shown that the Absolute is self-conscious, 
 we are justified in calling it personal. Now, a 
 constant feature of self- consciousness, as we know 
 it, is the contrast of ego and non-ego. I affirm 
 myself and know myself as over against a not-self. 
 Lotze's problem, therefore, is to show how the 
 Absolute, which is the supreme and sole reality, 
 can be a self-conscious Being. His argument, put 
 briefly, runs thus. 1 Self -consciousness is not de- 
 veloped by forming an image, which is identified 
 as an image of the ego. For this operation pre- 
 supposes an already existing self-feeling. In this 
 feeling lies the principle which differentiates one 
 self from another. The self is not gradually 
 defined over against an outward reality but by 
 contrast with its own inward and changing states. 
 No doubt in the case of finite persons there is an 
 ultimate reference to something without implied 
 in sensation : but Lotze urges that this is not an 
 
 1 Vid. Religionsphilosophie, p. 39 ff., and Microcosmus (Eng. 
 trans.), vol. ii. 680 ff. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 251 
 
 essential feature of personality, but a defect which 
 attaches to its finite form. In an infinite personal- 
 ity no such external reference is necessary. 
 
 This ingenious argument has been accepted by 
 several thinkers, and it is undoubtedly suggestive. 
 At the same time, supposing it to be valid, I think 
 it still leaves the old difficulty unexplained how 
 there can be individual personalities within the one 
 real personal Being. And it is at least doubtful if 
 any distinction between a self and its inner states 
 does not ultimately involve a reference to a not- 
 self or other. It must indeed be granted that an 
 original self- feeling is presupposed in forming the 
 distinction of ego and non-ego, as well as in the 
 process by which the ego is able to recognise itself 
 as an identity which maintains itself through its 
 own states. Yet all our experience goes to show 
 that the feeling only becomes an explicit conscious- 
 ness, because we find it practically necessary to 
 mark off gradually a section of our ideas as repre- 
 sentative of the not-self. And on this contrast 
 appears to depend the generalisation by which we 
 designate a part of our experience as inner. The 
 interior world of human memory and reflection, in 
 which we are invited to see a faint adumbration of 
 the closed inner life of the Absolute, is a highly 
 complex construction which could not be developed 
 apart from the not-self. Is there any proof that 
 
252 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 this reference to another than the self, which is 
 implied in our developed self-consciousness, is a 
 feature which is restricted to the finite ? If there 
 is, Lotze does not supply it. And it remains a 
 puzzle how the Absolute could refer its states to 
 itself, if there were nothing with which it could 
 contrast itself. If an Absolute Self-consciousness 
 were possible under these conditions, and on this 
 we will not dogmatise, the analogy between it and 
 our own self -consciousness must be very slender 
 indeed. 
 
 While the necessary reference to the not-self in 
 finite self-consciousness is not, I think, in itself a 
 defect, yet there can be no doubt that, in the 
 particular form in which it manifests itself in our 
 experience, it does carry with it a limitation. As 
 Lotze says, we do not contain within ourselves 
 the conditions of our own existence, and external 
 stimuli come to us from an object which does not 
 depend upon us. The work of ideal construction 
 by which we interpret experience we are compelled 
 to envisage in forms of space and time, and cogni- 
 tion is a process which goes from part to part, 
 and is never complete and adequate to its object. 
 Memory, the instrument by which we link the 
 present to the past, is only fragmentary in its 
 achievement, and severely restricts the contents of 
 individual knowledge. Hence to some extent the 
 
Meaning of Religion. 253 
 
 wide fields of experience always appear to the 
 individual knower a foreign territory, which shuts 
 in his own slender property. Again, the act of 
 will, by which we seek to modify reality in accord- 
 ance with our idea, is the expression of a desire in 
 us. And this desire is born of an incomplete har- 
 mony of inner and outer, and is a demand for fuller 
 correspondence between the self and its object. 
 But the process of will in time never gives the 
 completeness which is its ideal, and endeavour 
 never closes in a full satisfaction. Nor is it other- 
 wise when a man makes himself his object, and 
 reflects upon his own life. If self-knowledge is desir- 
 able, it is proverbially difficult. We do not succeed 
 in gathering up into a whole, and illuminating with 
 a clear light, the inner history. Here and there 
 spaces of our life remain brightly lighted, but 
 greater interspaces have faded into darkness and 
 are forgotten ; and these have been important 
 elements in making us what we are. And phases 
 of our inner experience which we do remember, 
 with the lapse of years we sometimes find ourselves 
 unable fully to understand and appreciate. Indeed 
 many considerations go to show that man is not a 
 complete self - consciousness, he is not a perfect 
 personality. For this can only be said of a subject 
 for whom the object contains no alien element, and 
 is fully comprehended ; where will is activity which 
 
254 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 is no token of defect ; and where the self in all its 
 meaning is ever present to consciousness, and the 
 whole is a full harmony. 
 
 After these criticisms and discussions we come to 
 the important question whether, and if so, how far, 
 we can offer any theory of the nature of God as 
 personal, which would serve to justify the use of 
 the term in this reference. There are some, who 
 have the interests of religion at heart, who hold 
 that any speculative construction of the nature of 
 God is valueless. The theologian, K. A. Lipsius, for 
 instance, has declared that God is personal in the 
 faith relation, but we cannot translate what is real 
 to faith into an independent metaphysical deter- 
 mination. 1 If we take this to mean that we cannot 
 give an adequate speculative construction of the 
 divine nature, the statement need not be disputed. 
 But if we take it to mean that the personality of 
 God is a pure matter of faith, which reason is 
 powerless to justify, then the case is surely put too 
 strongly. If reason were entirely dumb on the 
 subject, the verdict of faith, standing quite unsup- 
 ported, would be felt in the long-run to be unsatis- 
 factory. A Philosophy of Religion, though it does 
 not pretend to give a full solution of this question, 
 may properly be expected to show reason for one 
 
 1 Dogmatik, 1879, pp. 175, 176. Cp. also the remarks a little 
 further on in this essay. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 255 
 
 view or the other. And if it argues that God is 
 personal, it should try to show that this deter- 
 mination is so far consistent with the ground of 
 experience. 
 
 The result which our discussion up to this point 
 seems to have yielded may be stated thus. If God, 
 conceived as Absolute, be the whole of reality, one 
 of two results follows. Either individual selves are 
 real, but God the system in which they are con- 
 nected is not a person ; or the Absolute as the sum 
 of experience is a self, but the selves which fall 
 within it are mere appearance. Neither view is 
 satisfactory. In the one case we cannot understand 
 how self-conscious persons should issue out of the 
 unconscious world-process, in the other we virtually 
 explain them away. If, then, we are to maintain 
 the reality both of the divine and the human self, 
 we cannot speak of God as the Absolute in the 
 common philosophic use of the term. For if God 
 be the all-inclusive whole of reality, a personal rela- 
 tion between Him and individuals is not possible, 
 and there is no real place for religion. If we do 
 use the term Absolute of God, it must be in a more 
 restricted sense. We may speak of God as the 
 absolute ground or condition of experience, not as 
 the all-inclusive whole of experience. It will be a 
 gain if recent discussions have made it clear that 
 the philosophic Absolute and the religious idea of 
 
256 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 God cannot, as they stand, be made to coincide. If 
 the notion of the Absolute is right, our view of 
 religion cannot hold good : if the claim of religion 
 is valid, the idea of the Absolute must be revised. 1 
 
 The World-Ground, we already concluded, must 
 be self-conscious, and we now add that, though all 
 finite experience depends on it, it is not the whole 
 of experience. The question will perhaps be put 
 to us, How is it possible to think of a Supreme Self 
 who is the ground of all human selves, while both 
 are for themselves as well as for one another? 
 Plainly our view involves the inference that the 
 activity of the divine Will by which He is ground 
 of all human experience is not a stage or step by 
 which He becomes self-conscious. For this takes 
 us back to the unworkable notion of a purely im- 
 manent divine consciousness. Hence the Supreme 
 Being must contain eternally within Himself the 
 actualised conditions of self -consciousness. These 
 conditions, we found reason to believe, were that 
 
 1 Philosophy and Religion frequently agree in regarding God as 
 the Supreme Spirit. But when a distinguished exponent of the 
 all-inclusive notion of the Absolute, like Prof. Jones, tells us ('Hib- 
 bert Journal,' Oct. 1903, p. 31) that reality is a coherent system all 
 of whose parts and elements exist in and through a supreme principle 
 which manifests and embodies itself in them, and adds that religion as 
 well as philosophy calls this principle God, we must take leave to 
 doubt the statement. The weight of historic evidence is that the 
 religious mind means by God a reality which differs in essential points 
 from such a principle. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 257 
 
 there should be a not-self contrasted with and yet 
 related to the self. This appears to be a feature in 
 all gradations in the development of self in finite 
 experience. No doubt in the region of our experi- 
 ence we never find a perfect harmony and corres- 
 pondence between the self and its object, as the 
 existence of evil and error testify : and the historic 
 process seems to be an endeavour towards fuller 
 concord. The Divine Being, it may be suggested, 
 is the eternally perfect and complete type, of which 
 human self-consciousness is the partial and imperfect 
 reflexion. This would mean that God is not to be 
 conceived as pure unity. The element of difference 
 must enter into His nature, but here it does not 
 carry with it external limitation or defect of any 
 kind. Rather we must think of a unity which is 
 differentiated but is at the same time a perfect 
 harmony ; of a not-self which in no way impedes 
 the activity of the self, and of a subject which fully 
 realises itself in the object ; of a Being, in short, in 
 whom subject and object completely and harmoni- 
 ously interpenetrate. It is important to remember 
 here that the Divine Nature is not under the con- 
 ditions of time and space, and that the defects 
 which pertain to perceptual and cognitive process 
 in our experience do not exist in it. The piece- 
 meal character which attaches to our thought and 
 will cannot belong to the divine thought and 
 
258 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 will. And the fact that we are under these limi- 
 tations debars us from comprehending adequately 
 the Supreme Consciousness in our discursive 
 thought. 
 
 The same difficulty besets us when we try to 
 understand the divine world - grounding activity. 
 We ca,n hardly avoid using words which contain 
 spatial and temporal images, and yet these must 
 be more or less misleading. The phrase ' act of 
 will/ for instance, suggests a passing into activity 
 due to some occasion at a particular point of time. 
 And an idea like this applied to God is full of diffi- 
 culties and contradictions. It is perhaps less open 
 to objection to say that God's will is eternally 
 ground of all individual experience, in the sense 
 that we cannot consistently represent to ourselves 
 His bringing it into being at any particular point 
 in time. On the other hand, we do not know enough 
 of the divine nature to warrant us in saying that 
 the manifestation of the Divine Will, as ground of 
 a connected world of individual selves, is necessarily 
 involved in that nature. The divine self-conscious- 
 ness is not made possible by the existence of a world 
 in space and time. Nevertheless if we say that God 
 might equally have manifested, or refrained from 
 manifesting, His Will in a world of individual 
 spirits, this would mean that self-revelation is not 
 essential to His nature. And the notion that the 
 
Meaning of Religion. 259 
 
 present world has been preferentially chosen by 
 God, out of various possible worlds, implies an 
 anthropomorphic conception of Deity which it is 
 hard to justify : both from a metaphysical and ethi- 
 cal point of view it is open to serious objections. 
 Nor can we give any satisfying explanation how 
 'spiritual substances come to exist for themselves, 
 while they form a coherent whole only through the 
 immanent connecting activity of the Divine Will. 
 Explanation is the fruit of the endeavour to find 
 and state in general terms the continuity which 
 exists between elements within experience, and it 
 always carries with it the impress of its origin. 
 Indeed the explanation how anything takes place, 
 if sufficient for the purpose in hand, is never theo- 
 retically complete. So we cannot be expected to 
 establish the exact connexion between centres of 
 experience and their ultimate ground, for the con- 
 nexion would have to be stated in a form of thought 
 properly applicable to elements which fall within our 
 experience. But though we cannot explain how 
 spiritual Beings proceed from the Divine Will, this 
 does not invalidate the postulate, if it can be justi- 
 fied on other grounds. 
 
 According to the view here suggested, God is the 
 actual and perfect form of personality, and, as time- 
 less ground of the world, He is the condition of the 
 development of personal experience in time. We 
 
260 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 cannot conceive Him as an individual spirit in a 
 society, for then His meaning must be found in 
 the system of which He was a member, and He 
 would be conditioned as well as conditioning. And 
 He would thus share the limitations of finite spirits, 
 and could not contain in Himself the reason of His 
 activity. God must ever be differentiated from 
 finite persons, in that He is the active ground on 
 which they all depend. He is the supreme Self- 
 consciousness who transcends the divisions of space 
 and time, and makes possible that partial reflexion 
 of Himself which is the developing self-conscious- 
 ness of man. 
 
 The foregoing argument has led us by successive 
 stages to the determination of the World-Ground as 
 Supreme Will, as Self-conscious Will, and finally as 
 the Will of a complete or perfect Personality. We 
 must now ask how far the nature of personal ex- 
 perience warrants us in giving more definite content 
 to the idea of God. The speculative thinker cannot 
 follow in the track of the older theologians and, 
 selecting certain ethical predicates, simply declare 
 that they must belong in perfection (via eminentice) 
 to the divine character. It has been said that all 
 such analogical attribution of content is here in- 
 valid. 1 The statement is too sweeping. But no 
 doubt we cannot postulate ethical qualifications of 
 
 1 E.g., by Wundt. Vid. System der Philosophie, p. 438. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 261 
 
 the Divine Nature in the way that we postulate a 
 personal ground of the world. Obviously many 
 qualities we judge good in men cease to have a 
 meaning in an eternal and perfect Being. And if 
 the mere fact that certain virtues have come to exist 
 in men be a pledge that they have a counterpart 
 in God, we ought to say the same of human vices. 
 The truth is that experience, viewed as existing 
 fact, gives no valid ground for inferring that God 
 is a spiritual personality, such as He appears to the 
 developed religious consciousness. Pure thought 
 can never show us that ethical content must be 
 predicated of the Deity : speculative thinkers who 
 ostensibly deduce such content really assume it. If 
 we are to justify ourselves in giving this further 
 qualification to the idea of God, it must be on 
 other grounds than those which are purely intel- 
 lectual. The claim so to interpret the character 
 of God must rest on the demand of our inner 
 nature, that the Being who is the ground of all 
 reality satisfy our moral and spiritual needs and 
 aspirations. Is the claim a valid one? 
 
 If the demand in question were simply a subjec- 
 tive desire that ultimate Eeality should be qualified 
 in particular ways, it would be hard to defend its 
 validity ; and we are not in the habit of assuming 
 that what we wish to be must be. The case would 
 be different if it should appear that the claim is the 
 
262 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 normal outcome of the practical life of men. Now 
 in the forefront of the practical life the distinction 
 has been set between what is and what ought to be. 
 Man in the exercise of his will ever places a better 
 before him, and moves in a world of values. A 
 being " of large discourse," he looks before and 
 after; and with the possible satisfaction of the 
 moment he contrasts a greater good, which may be 
 inconsistent with it and should be preferred before 
 it. By allegiance to some central end or chief good, 
 to which other values are related as a means, he 
 seeks more or less consciously to organise his con- 
 duct as a consistent whole. The affirmation that 
 something ought to be, the demand that value 
 should be realised, this has been the constant wit- 
 ness of the human spirit throughout its history. 
 The content of the idea of value has changed with 
 the changing life of societies, but the historic process 
 has been, on the whole, from material to ethical and 
 spiritual conceptions of good. No doubt man, speak- 
 ing at a particular point and time in the evolution 
 of experience, cannot give final and determinate 
 content to the idea of what ought to be. He sees 
 ' as through a glass darkly/ but he has faith that 
 the good dimly discerned is no abstraction and 
 works as a living influence on human souls. In 
 his endeavour to fill his personal life with a good 
 which he has not yet, man finds a meaning for his 
 
Meaning of Religion. 263 
 
 existence and a scope for his freedom. Not the 
 world of mere fact but that which ought to be has 
 the best title to exist. So humanity, clinging in 
 faith to the thought of a good which transcends all 
 other goods, moves forward to its goal by the way 
 of the better. Faith, it must be said, will not accept 
 the view that its ideal good is a purely relative 
 notion which, Proteus-like, takes many forms, and 
 is only consistent in refusing to be fixed to any one 
 of them. Nor can it agree that a Supreme Value is 
 a mere abstraction, although when pressed for a 
 reason it cannot point and say, Lo here, or lo there ! 
 The kingdom of faith is within, and its members are 
 convinced that they experience the presence and 
 appeal of the good which ought to be. This faith is 
 the utterance of the free spirit, and is its personal 
 affirmation that that is real which is demanded by 
 its own deepest needs. The judgment of faith is 
 certainly not a logical inference which follows 
 analytically from premises which are given ; yet it 
 would, not be fair to say that it is only a psycho- 
 logical statement of what occurs in a particular 
 person. The judgment which faith makes is not an 
 isolated one. It is rather the normal utterance of 
 the spiritual nature, the affirmation of what men 
 recognise to be the demand of their moral and 
 spiritual life. Directly or indirectly you must 
 attest its practical validity. The Buddhist, for 
 
264 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 example, while radically differing in his valuations 
 from Western races, is still impelled to assert the 
 claim of a higher good to be : Nirvana is what 
 ought to be, and it is better than any existence in 
 sense and time. We conclude that it is a normal 
 characteristic of man as an active spiritual being to 
 assert over against mere fact the claim of a higher 
 good ; and this involves the faith that all values 
 stand in organic relation to a Supreme value. 
 The existence of a highest value, though not a 
 logical inference, might be named with Kant a 
 postulate of the practical reason, for it is a 
 demand which grows out of the organisation of 
 practical life. 
 
 That in the historical development of the race the 
 step of personifying the highest value should have 
 been taken is significant. It is intelligible, too, for 
 goodness has always a personal reference, and in 
 the last resort is something personally realised. 
 Hence the value-judgment finds its goal in a God 
 who is perfectly good, the source of all the value that 
 is, and the pledge of its completion. We do not 
 underrate this movement as a historical testimony to 
 man's need of God. At the same time, if the ground 
 of our theistic belief is only a judgment of value, I 
 cannot but think the foundation is not sufficiently 
 stable. Let me state shortly some objections to the 
 view, held by not a few at present, which throws 
 
Meaning of Religion. 265 
 
 the whole stress of the theistic inference on the 
 value-j udgment . 
 
 Although in practical life we must affirm our faith 
 in value, and even in a highest value, the need of 
 finding this value personified in a Supreme Being 
 has not been universally experienced. There are 
 always some in every age who do not feel that their 
 inward needs call for the existence of a God. Nor 
 does it seem inconsistent with our faith in value, 
 that the highest good should be, not a single 
 Supreme Person but a celestial oligarchy, or even 
 a society of souls who find a perfect satisfaction in 
 one another. Such a conception may be contradic- 
 tory, but from the value standpoint it need not be 
 so ; and if we reject it, it must be for other reasons. 
 Again, it is decidedly unsatisfactory that on grounds 
 of faith alone we should predicate a highly developed 
 notion like personality of the supreme good : at 
 the very least we ought to discuss how far it is 
 applicable in such a case. If it were argued that 
 personality is a form of the finite only, it would not 
 be enough for the theologian to say, " Faith assures 
 us that the Infinite is personal, and therefore it must 
 be so in fact." He would require to show that the 
 concept of the Infinite, or the World-Ground, was at 
 least not inconsistent with personality. We have, 
 however, already touched on the point, and will only 
 add here that a theism which rests entirely on a 
 
266 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 reading of the value-judgment must be perilously 
 weak. 
 
 We have tried to show that there are other 
 grounds why God should be conceived as personal. 
 And if the conclusion be accepted, then the service 
 the value- judgment can render in this connexion 
 becomes clear. Faith completes the more formal 
 determinations of reason, and the practical postulate 
 of a highest good gives content to our conception 
 of the self-conscious ground of things. The Supreme- 
 value which faith affirms to be real must belong to 
 the inner nature of the Supreme Self. In the 
 Divine Consciousness the highest good eternally 
 has that reality which the finite self, from its 
 standpoint in time, affirms it ought to have. 
 Hence to the eye of faith the process of experience 
 is neither a mechanical movement nor a dialectic 
 evolution but stages in the development of the 
 good which is the content of the Divine Will. 
 From this point of view the demands of the 
 ethical consciousness represent the inner meaning 
 of the historic process, and witness to the char- 
 acter of its ground. But it must be confessed 
 that we cannot give adequate specification to the 
 highest value conceived as the world-end. Man 
 must be content to gather glimpses of his goal 
 with the progressive development of the good in 
 the growing riches of personal life. The spirit of 
 
Meaning of Religion. 267 
 
 the age, " dreaming of things to come," can never 
 give a clear form and body to the ideal it aspires 
 after, and the prophets who would "describe it speak 
 in doubtful oracles. When we turn the eye from 
 the illuminated space called the present, the forms 
 of distant things are dim. Man, however, sees 
 enough for the conduct of life when he can 
 advance on the line of the goal, and pass from 
 the lesser to the greater good. Moreover, the 
 highest good, as it would be for our thought, would 
 still fall far short of that living fulness of personal 
 experience in which alone it could be adequately 
 known and appreciated. The experience we have 
 to go on is incomplete. For aught that we know, 
 terrestrial experience may be only a fragmentary 
 portion of a vaster experience. So the faith which 
 speaks confidently of a final good is also con- 
 strained to confess that "it doth not yet appear 
 what we shall be." But it is at least clear that 
 the ultimate good must be a personally realised 
 experience, and it cannot be apart from God, who 
 is the source and consummation of all goodness. 
 Let me add that, as it is by an act of faith we 
 affirm the reality of the Absolute Value, so it is 
 likewise an act of faith by which we affirm that 
 it coincides with the Self-Conscious ground of all 
 experience. Not reason, then, but faith gives 
 ethical content to the idea of God. Nevertheless 
 
268 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 there is a justification for the conviction that the 
 theoretical and the value-judgment must converge 
 towards, and find their goal in, one Supreme 
 Being. For though we cannot unify the two 
 in thought, yet both proceed from one and the 
 same personal life in man, which cannot finally 
 be divided against itself. And this life every- 
 where has its roots in the activity of the personal 
 World- Ground. 
 
 We now turn to the concluding part of our 
 task in the present essay. We proceed to con- 
 sider the final interpretation of religion in the 
 light of its ultimate basis. The discussion in an 
 earlier essay was concerned with the psychological 
 interpretation of religious development ; it remains 
 for us to try to complete this statement by re- 
 considering our results from the speculative stand- 
 point, which we have sought to make good in the 
 foregoing pages. 
 
 The objective basis of religion is God, and more 
 definitely God as the supreme and perfect Spiritual 
 Personality. All experience has its ground in the 
 Divine Will ; but it is only with the development 
 of personal centres of experience that the divine 
 activity within experience can be the ground for 
 conscious acts which have a religious significance. 
 Very important is it in the interpretation of religion 
 to remember that the Divine Being, while immanent 
 
Meaning of Religion. 269 
 
 in all centres of experience, also transcends them, 
 and does not derive the fulness of His personal 
 life from them. For religion, it cannot be dis- 
 guised, means a personal relationship, and the 
 object of reverence must at least be invested with 
 some personal qualities. Within a strictly pan- 
 theistic whole there is scope neither for judgments 
 of value nor for religious faith. On the other 
 hand, if we so differentiate the divine and the 
 human that the immanence of the divine in the 
 human is lost sight of, the facts of the religious 
 consciousness again become inexplicable. The 
 universal character of religion shows that it is a 
 native expression of the human soul, and its root 
 must lie in that immanent activity of God by 
 which He is the ground of personal and self- 
 conscious beings. This seems to us the ontological 
 explanation of the psychological fact that religion 
 is the expression of certain common elements in 
 the personal life of men. With a merely external 
 relation of God to man, religion likewise becomes 
 external, and ceases to be a vital utterance of 
 human needs and energies. The old words which 
 speak of the divine as the "life and light of men" 
 find ample justification in the witness of the religi- 
 ous consciousness. 
 
 The psychological study of religious development 
 has shown us that religion is the utterance of man's 
 
2 ye The ultimate Basis and 
 
 nature as a whole, yet certain feelings are specially 
 active in promoting it. I refer to the feeling of 
 incompleteness and need, to the sense of depend- 
 ence. From the first this attitude of spirit had a 
 practical justification in the circumstances of the 
 human lot on earth. The Philosophy of Religion 
 gives a deeper and a broader basis to the psycho- 
 logical facts. The feeling of need and dependence 
 ultimately springs from the nature of human per- 
 sonality. The finite spirit has not the ground of 
 its being in itself but in God, who makes possible 
 its activity. Historically it was the physical facts 
 of his limitation which first pressed themselves on 
 primitive man, but the process of inner develop- 
 ment led to the recognition that incompleteness is 
 a note of the personal life itself. All individual 
 being is derivative, it has its ground in the Divine 
 Will; and this fundamental fact lies behind that 
 experience of incompleteness and dependence which 
 marks the religious consciousness. The growth in 
 the religious consciousness has been in the direction 
 of converting this material and external idea of 
 dependence into an inward and spiritual idea, or, 
 what is the same thing, the desire for freedom 
 has passed from a negative to a positive form. 
 That primitive piety which is concerned with the 
 deliverance from brute wants and fears is slowly 
 transmuted into the spiritual mind, which yearns 
 
Meaning of Religion. 271 
 
 for the inward completion of its own life through 
 the indwelling life of God. And the process by 
 which man rises to this lofty thought is the pro- 
 cess by which he comes to the consciousness of the 
 immanent ground of his own being. 
 
 But it is necessary to the right interpretation 
 of religion to keep in view the special character 
 of the Divine Ground on which personal life 
 depends. We must remember that the Divine 
 Being who stands in intimate relation to the 
 lives of men is a perfect and complete Personality. 
 The defects which are involved in human know- 
 ledge and volition have no counterpart in God, 
 who is eternally in harmony with Himself. And 
 it is the immanent working of the divine in the 
 human, the contact and pressure of the larger 
 Self, which gives the impulse to development and 
 is the living source of religious aspiration. It is 
 because our life is grounded in a perfect Being 
 that we strive after a perfect satisfaction of the 
 self, and can finally be content with no temporal 
 good. The history of religion is the record how 
 man transcends each partial satisfaction of his 
 spiritual nature, and seeks a satisfaction final and 
 complete ; and the explanation of the process is 
 the inner relation of the soul to God. 
 
 The significance of religion, however, will not be 
 grasped if we do not recognise a special character in 
 
272 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 the imperfection which attaches to human person- 
 ality. This is not simply that of an undeveloped 
 being, who has not yet realised the latent richness 
 of his nature. If this were all, then the sense of 
 discord and division in the self, which in the 
 developed religious consciousness utters itself in the 
 longing for redemption and spiritual deliverance, 
 would not be intelligible. The truth is that, over 
 and above what may be called natural imperfection, 
 there is that particular quality of evil in the human 
 self which we designate sin. Sin is a contradiction 
 of the divine law of man's nature, and is made 
 possible by the fact that the human self is so 
 differentiated from its divine ground that it calls 
 its will its own and can oppose the Divine Will. 
 There is an irrational element in sin, and it is not 
 fully explicable; but it is a fact which the Philos- 
 ophy of Keligion cannot ignore, though it is not 
 able to offer a speculative theory of its origin and 
 meaning. Any attempt to rationalise moral evil, 
 by showing that it is somehow involved in the 
 evolution of the good as its necessary contrast, can 
 only be partially successful. For in the last resort 
 we are confronted with the verdict of the moral 
 consciousness that sin is just what ought not to be. 
 And one must distrust the power of the most 
 synoptic mind to rise to a standpoint, where that 
 which the moral judgment says ought not to be is 
 
Mean ing of Religion. 273 
 
 seen as possessing a proper title to exist. 1 The fact 
 of sin, however you interpret it, gives emphasis to 
 the reality of human freedom, a point of great 
 importance to the right understanding of religion. 
 For apart from this freedom the discord which is 
 in our nature is not intelligible a discord which 
 makes the burden of the higher Ethical Keligions 
 a longing for inward reconciliation. And then the 
 act of faith by which the individual finds deliver- 
 ance in communion with a Divine Being is also 
 an exercise of freedom : you cannot construe it as 
 the necessary outcome of inward development. If 
 you eliminate this element of personal freedom, I do 
 not see how a man's religion should be to him an 
 inward and personal expression of himself. It could 
 not be so any more than the language he habitually 
 
 1 In a system like Hegel's sin must somehow find a place in the 
 dialectical evolution of spirit. Mr M'Taggart, in his * Studies in 
 the Hegelian Cosmology,' chap, vi., advances some considerations in 
 favour of the view that it is the negative moment in the transition 
 from innocence to virtue. But his remarks are not convincing. Say 
 what you will, when sin becomes a necessary stage in personal 
 development, it ceases to be sin in the full sense of the word. In 
 individual experience it is not necessary to participate in sin in order 
 that there be that reaction against it which promotes the formation 
 of disciplined virtue. Moreover it does not seem correct to say that 
 virtue reached after personal experience of sin is thereby more com- 
 plete. It would be nearer the mark to affirm that, though a man's 
 conscious antagonism to sin may be sharpened by experience of the 
 misery it entails, yet'his bygone indulgence in evil habit leaves an 
 element of weakness in his character which may reveal itself in time 
 of stress. 
 
 S 
 
274 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 speaks is the expression of his character and indi- 
 viduality. 1 
 
 Behind this exercise of freedom on man's part, 
 and never destroyed by it, is the fundamental 
 relation in which he stands to God, the perfect 
 Personality. On this depends the fact that in the 
 use of his freedom he has brought discord into his 
 nature. For discord takes us back to a harmony of 
 which it is a disturbance, and just because the har- 
 mony strives to assert itself are there division and 
 pain. That discontent with itself which impels the 
 soul to look above itself, if a token of imperfection, 
 is also a witness to the enduring bond which links it 
 to a harmonious and perfect Life. The development 
 of religion in the individual and the race is an 
 endeavour to gain a harmonious personal existence, 
 and the common need and demand for this arise out 
 of the immanent relation of the human self to a 
 Divine Self. " Be ye therefore perfect, even as 
 your Father in heaven is perfect." The pressure of 
 the Divine ideal from within is man's warrant and 
 encouragement to embark on this high enterprise. 
 Nor is it alien work at which he is invited to 
 labour : he is only bidden strive to enter into the 
 
 1 These remarks no doubt apply chiefly to the higher religions. 
 At the stage of nature -religion personal freedom is undeveloped. 
 To the savage freedom means no more than deliverance from the 
 oppression of physical evils. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 275 
 
 full enjoyment of that heritage which is his spiritual 
 birthright. 
 
 But religion, as an endeavour after personal har- 
 mony, though in its development it presents features 
 of its own, is of course subject to the general condi- 
 tions of human development. Even on the lower 
 levels of individual being, the nature of the indi- 
 vidual is only unfolded through interaction with 
 other individuals. And at a higher stage we have 
 recognised that self - consciousness is mediated by 
 the interplay of mind with mind in a social system. 
 Nor is it otherwise with the development of the 
 personal capacity for religion. The growth in self- 
 consciousness which society makes possible is also 
 accompanied by a growth in the religious conscious- 
 ness : and at all its stages religion reflects the 
 character of the society to which it belongs. When, 
 for instance, the social medium becomes rich enough 
 to nourish a highly developed personality, then this 
 is reflected in the inner religion of the prophet and 
 spiritual teacher. And, as it is a general law that 
 self-consciousness unfolds by interaction with other 
 selves, the same is true in the case of the spiritual 
 consciousness. The latter finds expression and wins 
 strength for progress in the mutual affections, duties, 
 and services of persons within a social whole. In 
 and through their relations to others men give prac- 
 tical form to their religious faith. At whatever 
 
276 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 level you take religion, you always see that it con- 
 tains the idea of a bond linking men to their God 
 and to one another. The idea may be crude and 
 external, or it may be refined and spiritual, yet it is 
 ever present. A religion for the single soul and for 
 no other is instinctively felt to be a contradiction. 
 Plainly this feature is not arbitrary or accidental, 
 but belongs to the nature of religion itself; and 
 it seems possible to suggest a speculative interpreta- 
 tion of it. It must have its basis in the fundamental 
 character of the divine activity that activity by 
 which individuals are placed in a position of 
 common dependence, while at the same time they 
 are made interdependent. God is the immanent 
 Ground of each personal life, and connects all 
 personal centres of experience. It is the harmony 
 of the divine Self in inner contact with the human 
 self which urges man to seek satisfaction in religion. 
 Hence the religious impulse, proceeding from a com- 
 mon source and tending to the like expression, 
 was felt as a bond of union in tribe or people : 
 and this bond had its visible form in the God of 
 their worship. Under existing psychological and 
 social conditions man has given what utterance he 
 could to the truth, that what is central in each man 
 is common to all, and that the religious bond is 
 rooted in the inner nature of men. He has had to 
 use the symbols which lay to his hand in his 
 
Meaning of Religion. 277 
 
 endeavour to express the tie which bound him and 
 his fellows to divine powers. He conceives the 
 bond to be one of blood, or he thinks of it less 
 crudely as a kinship which goes back to a common 
 divine ancestor ; or, finally, he regards it as the 
 spiritual brotherhood which proceeds from the one 
 spiritual Father in heaven. But though they may 
 have expressed the principle inadequately in symbol 
 or in creed, men have always believed, and acted on 
 the belief, that the tie which bound them to their 
 God also bound them intimately to one another. 
 The persistence of this feature shows that it belongs 
 to the essence of religion. We suggest that its 
 ultimate explanation lies in the fact that God, the 
 source of the religious consciousness, is the ground 
 on which all spirits depend, and by which they are 
 linked to one another. And the religious conscious- 
 ness in its temporal development gives expression 
 to the nature of the Power which works in its 
 working. 
 
 The thinker who tries to read a philosophic 
 meaning into the history of religious development 
 has a hard task, for the facts are often stubborn 
 and refractory. But any attempt to deal with 
 the problem must keep, as it seems to us, two 
 things in view. These are (1) the common Divine 
 Ground from which the religious consciousness pro- 
 ceeds, and (2) the temporal conditions and limita- 
 
278 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 tions under which that consciousness can reveal 
 itself. By the former we explain the universality 
 of religion and the continuity of its manifestation 
 through all the stages of human culture. And by 
 the second we must explain the diverse and often 
 conflicting utterances of that consciousness in its 
 temporal unfolding. The changing social medium 
 reflects the spiritual light in manifold ways. But 
 when we take into account the difference in the 
 character of the medium, the phenomena need not 
 be inconsistent with unity of source. For the self 
 is socially evolved, and the god in whom the 
 self seeks satisfaction corresponds to the self which 
 has to be satisfied. But it is just the presence 
 of the Divine in man throughout the long evolu- 
 tion of personal life which makes him realise the 
 partial nature of the satisfaction he has attained. 
 It impels him to pass beyond the one-sided forms 
 in which he has given expression to his faith, 
 and urges him to seek a satisfaction deeper and 
 more complete. This is the principle which lies 
 behind the rise and fall of religions in history. 
 And the fact that the religious spirit is in move- 
 ment, that it transcends the incomplete and, as 
 it may seem, conflicting forms in which it em- 
 bodies itself, should make us willing to admit that 
 there may be unity of meaning and purpose in a 
 process which we can only survey in part. 
 
Meaning of Religion. 279 
 
 But we must also remember that the divine 
 immanence does not work so as to submerge the 
 individual personality and supersede its freedom. 
 The form which the religious consciousness takes 
 is not wrought in man independently of his own 
 will. An act of choice and personal appropriation 
 are implied. And it is possible for him to give it an 
 expression which neither corresponds to his deeper 
 nature nor ministers directly to progress. Fetish- 
 ism and, at a higher stage, pantheism are such 
 forms ; for neither lends itself to that inner per- 
 sonal development which is essential to religious 
 progress. Still, though such phases of religion 
 stand for a retrograde movement, they may have 
 a function in religious development, if only a 
 negative one. Their incapacity to satisfy the need 
 of the personal life may promote a reaction of 
 the religious spirit towards a fruitful line of ad- 
 vance. The spiritual nature, in sympathetic re- 
 sponse to its divine ground, asserts itself against 
 the claims of a one-sided development. 
 
 That there is on the whole a progress in religious 
 history we have already concluded. But standing 
 as we do in the midst of this great movement, 
 we can hardly expect to perceive its full and 
 final significance. Nevertheless the prospect is not 
 wholly dark. The movement has its ground in the 
 working of a supreme and perfect Personality. 
 
280 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 Finite personality has its preliminary basis in in- 
 dividuality, and develops out of it. Individual 
 centres of experience lie behind the ideally con- 
 structed world. The individual real becomes the 
 self-conscious individual, and the self-conscious 
 individual in interaction with others acquires con- 
 tinuity of interest and determinate character. He 
 becomes personal in the larger sense. So ex- 
 perience comes to ripe blossom and fruit in per- 
 sonality. And if experience has its highest issue 
 in personal life, it is in religion that personal life 
 gains its fullest development. The evolution of 
 religion itself is a deepening and enrichment of 
 self-consciousness. In this process in time, as we 
 venture to interpret it, the Divine Spirit, working 
 through human aspiration and endeavour, seeks to 
 bring human souls to their amplest self-fulfilment 
 in living harmony and fellowship with Himself. 
 
 The general trend of religious evolution we have 
 already described as a movement from the sensuous 
 to the spiritual. And in the course of this history 
 personality plays an increasingly important part. 
 This fact has perhaps been sufficiently brought 
 out in an earlier essay. There are two special 
 points, however, connected with the development 
 of this conception which have an interest for the 
 Philosophy of Eeligion. The first of these is the 
 force and definiteness given to the personal idea 
 
Meaning of Religion. 281 
 
 through the life and work of the great spiritual 
 teachers and founders of religion. They impressed 
 on men the truth that religion was a personal 
 attitude, a matter of faith and conduct : and they 
 on their part seemed to men to set before them 
 a true knowledge of what God was and man 
 ought to be. They revealed God to human faith ; 
 in their words and works they gave forth the 
 divine spirit which filled them. And to the pious 
 imagination of later generations they became ideal 
 figures who represented the perfection of a religious 
 personality. They gave concrete shape to the ideal, 
 they brought the divine near to men, and they 
 stood forth on the historic stage the spiritual 
 helpers of those who struggled towards the heavenly 
 goal. The Philosophy of Eeligion cannot prove that 
 these personalities have been the special organs of 
 higher revelation to humanity, though their influ- 
 ence on religious development has been very great. 
 But, as we have argued before, they are not fully 
 explained by their age and circumstances. And 
 while there is a sense in which all religion has 
 its root in the divine, there is no valid reason 
 for denying that the Supreme Spirit may be more 
 directly operative at one point than another. In- 
 deed if we are clear, as we ought to be, that the 
 World-Ground is not mere substance but an active 
 personal Spirit, we shall regard such action as prob- 
 
282 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 able. The verdict of historical criticism in any 
 given case is of value, but in the region of 
 spiritual causality it cannot give a final decision. 
 Where faith finds a quickening and renewing influ- 
 ence flowing from a personality, the way is open 
 to recognise there a revelation from a divine source. 
 There are two aspects of the divine nature, as 
 our speculative discussion showed, the immanent 
 and transcendent. And our second point is, that 
 in the higher development of religion the trans- 
 cendent aspect comes to clear consciousness. The 
 statement may be controverted. It will be said 
 that an immanent God is the only one which the 
 modern mind can entertain. There is a tendency 
 in recent thought to lay stress on the immanence 
 of God to the exclusion of His transcendence. 
 But it seems to me the tendency is speculative in 
 its motive rather than religious. The religious con- 
 sciousness has always recognised a presence of God 
 in the world, but as the spiritual mind developed 
 it came to realise the complementary side of the 
 divine nature. And this has been the fruit of 
 the growing perception in spiritual experience of 
 the demands of personality. The higher religious 
 consciousness finds that the things of sense and 
 time cannot satisfy it. Likewise it sees that the 
 most potent obstacles to its development are within, 
 the selfish desires and evil passions. And the soul 
 
RS!TY 
 
 Meaning of Religion. 283 
 
 which can gain the harmony it craves neither with- 
 out nor within is urged towards a power above it. 
 Hence the part redemption plays in the higher 
 ethical religions. And the God who redeems is 
 always thought to be elevated above the evils 
 and defects of temporal existence, and so able to 
 impart that spiritual harmony to the soul which 
 the world cannot give. This negative relation to 
 the world has indeed sometimes been emphasised 
 overmuch. The way to God has been conceived, 
 as Plato at one time conceived it, to be a retreat 
 from the things of sense, <j)vy7j Se O/JUHOXJIS c< 
 Kara TO Swaroi/. 1 The exaggerations of this idea 
 in Neo-Platonic thought and Christian practice are 
 well known, and naturally brought about a reaction. 
 For the world after all is God's world, and He 
 must be in it as well as above it. None the less 
 the enlightened worshipper does not address him- 
 self to a Deity who has no being outside the 
 world-process. For he feels that a God who is 
 thus interwoven with this unsatisfying experience 
 in sense and time cannot ensure the fulfilment of 
 his deep desire for spiritual deliverance and personal 
 completion. It would thus appear that religious 
 experience and speculative thought converge towards 
 a common conception of God. The metaphysical 
 problem, as we tried to show, was how to think 
 
 1 Thesetetus, 176 B. 
 
284 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 the World-Ground, so that, while all things depend 
 upon it, the individuality which is at the core of 
 experience may not be reduced to unreal appear- 
 ance. The ripest outcome of religious experience, 
 which is expressed in faith in a God who is in 
 the world but also above it, agrees with the 
 speculative conclusion, though the line of ap- 
 proach has been different. That is to say, the 
 demands of consistent theory and the needs of 
 the spiritual life lead toward the same result. 
 
 Any speculative interpretation of religion must 
 ultimately be determined by the idea of God. If, 
 for instance, God is concluded to be impersonal, it 
 would not be possible to regard the end of religion 
 as the completion and harmony of human personal- 
 ity. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that the 
 basis from which a Philosophy of Eeligion is de- 
 veloped will be carefully and critically examined. 
 I do not doubt that some will find the speculative 
 idea of God, suggested in the present paper, to be 
 inconsistent, or at least defective. In any case it 
 will be said that it raises perplexing questions which 
 it does not answer. The latter complaint, it must 
 be granted, has justification. Difficulties, for ex- 
 ample, are connected with the interpretation of the 
 nature of space and time, and with the manner of 
 the divine immanence in the world. On the other 
 hand, it may be replied that there is no meta- 
 
Meaning of Religion. 285 
 
 physical theory of reality which does not lay itself 
 open to objections more or less important. The 
 test applied to a theory of the kind must be a 
 modified one viz., how far it does justice to the 
 essential aspects of experience. And I will say 
 this, the conception of God as personal World- 
 Ground offers fewer and less serious difficulties than 
 that which regards Him as an impersonal Absolute. 
 Thus, if the non - personal nature of God be 
 maintained, not only does the evolution of the 
 human self become an enigma, but the historic 
 development of the religious consciousness can only 
 mean the fictitious projection into the sphere of 
 real being of purely subjective needs and desires. 
 It has been truly said, " If it be denied that the 
 concept of personality is applicable to the nature 
 of God, the whole historical development of the 
 religious consciousness must be termed the de- 
 velopment of an illusion." x And while some are 
 prepared frankly to accept this consequence, they 
 must do so at the cost of declaring the fundamental 
 and persistent need in human nature, which en- 
 gendered the illusion, to be false and misleading. 
 This would mean that there is an abiding discord 
 between the claims of the spiritual and intellectual 
 nature. As against this we cherish the conviction, 
 that a world in which spiritual life can realise itself, 
 
 1 Siebeck, Lehrbuch der Eeligionsphilosophie, p. 364. 
 
286 The ultimate Basis and 
 
 and advance progressively to higher forms, must be 
 a world, on the whole at least, in accord with spirit- 
 ual ends. From this we would infer that it has a 
 spiritual ground. And if the theistic inference be 
 wrong, we can have no confidence in the continued 
 growth and dominance of spiritual life in the world. 
 It has blossomed forth in the process of experience, 
 and it may fade and die, for there is nothing in the 
 nature of things which can secure its persistence. 
 This can only be assured by an ethical and personal 
 World- Ground. 
 
 The individual who strives to know the reasons of 
 things is driven to confess that there are heights 
 and depths in experience which baffle the philo- 
 sophic mind. Even in the matter of our personal 
 history, the inner fulness of experience and its 
 subtle transitions are more than we can adequately 
 express in the general ideas with which thought 
 works. Still more inadequate must be our in- 
 tellectual conception of that ideal experience, the 
 experience complete and harmonious in which per- 
 sonal beings come to spiritual fruition in union with 
 God and one another, which is the goal of religious 
 endeavour. Dante, when at the close of his arduous 
 journey he approached the sphere of the Eternal 
 Light, found his speech brief and stammering, and 
 strength failed him to pursue the lofty vision : 
 " All' alta fantasia qui manc6 possa." 
 
Meaning of Religion. 287 
 
 And of God as He is for Himself, of the depths 
 of His inner nature, human thought could only 
 speak surely if it had ceased to be human, and if 
 it had become God's own thought. It is faith 
 which completes the work which reason has to 
 leave unfinished, and sets before men the Deity 
 who can be an object of reverence, loyalty, and 
 love. Faith gives that fulness of spiritual content 
 to the idea of God without which the religion of 
 personal experience and communion would be im- 
 possible. The office of faith thought cannot take 
 upon itself, and a speculative theory of religion 
 can lay no claim to exhaust the meaning of the 
 object of faith. But it should not be deemed to 
 have failed if it opens out deeper points of view 
 on the subject, suggests the larger meaning of re- 
 ligious development, and throws a light on the 
 place religion fills in experience as a whole. 
 
 The philosopher, according to the splendid idea 
 of Plato, is a c spectator of all time and existence ' : 
 in truth, he is the son of his age, and utters his 
 oracles on the deep things of eternity in the 
 language and tones of his time. The activity of 
 thought arises out of the wider movement of life, 
 and has its roots therein. Behind it work the 
 practical interests of a social era, and the verdicts 
 of reason are not absolutely impartial and im- 
 personal. The later speculator has the ampler ex- 
 
288 Ultimate Basis and Meaning of Religion. 
 
 perience to draw upon, if he has the wisdom to 
 read its lesson ; and he commonly finds it necessary 
 to preface his own message by a statement of the 
 shortcomings of those who have gone before him. 
 Human experience is incomplete, and while it con- 
 tinues to widen and deepen, the task of philosophy 
 will not be ended. Moreover, he would be a rash 
 man who ventured to declare that the universe 
 contains no other evolution of experience than the 
 terrestrial. Religion in these days has been re- 
 proached for failing to take to heart the teaching 
 of Copernicus, but philosophy has often laid itself 
 open to the same censure. And if Philosophy, 
 depending as it does on the larger movement of 
 experience, can advance no claim to finality, the 
 Philosophy of Religion is of necessity in the same 
 case. To some extent its conclusions must be 
 tentative, and there are things which it has to 
 leave unexplained. But if we reject the gospel 
 which some at present preach, that reason is only 
 the slave of feeling or the hired servant of will ; if 
 we are satisfied that thought is an essential aspect 
 of a developed personal life; we shall recognise 
 that man must take on him the task of searching 
 out the deeper meaning of religious experience. 
 
ESSAY VI. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: THE 
 EITSCHLIAN STANDPOINT 
 
ESSAY VI. 
 
 THE word theology (OeoXoyiKij) was used by Aristotle 
 as a designation of First Philosophy. For his ex- 
 position of principles led up to a Supreme Principle, 
 to a Being who is the ground of all being. Follow- 
 ing this lead, and keeping to the meaning of the 
 term, we should regard theology as dealing only 
 with the nature and attributes of God. In practice, 
 however, the word theology has come to have a 
 wider meaning. It is used to denote the connected 
 presentation of a system of religious doctrine. And 
 such a system is based on a concrete historic 
 religion. 
 
 The formation of doctrine belongs to the later 
 period of religious growth, for in the early stages of 
 religion the intellectual element is little developed. 
 Custom, worship, and ritual precede the evolution 
 of doctrine. Among the nature-religions doctrine, 
 in the ordinary sense, is not explicit, and remains 
 unseparated from myth, ritual, and tradition. Nor 
 
29 2 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 is this further development possible before the 
 appearance of ethical religion, and the advent of 
 reflective self -consciousness. But when this poico 
 is reached, thought asserts for itself a distinct 
 function in interpreting and directing the express- 
 ion of the religious spirit. The beliefs which have 
 silently grown up are now defined and organised, 
 and appeal is made to the understanding as well as 
 to the feelings and will. Man desires to find a 
 general meaning for the acts which are the practical 
 expression of religion, and this meaning he seeks to 
 formulate in doctrine. Illustrations of this tend- 
 ency will be readily found in the religions of India 
 and of ancient Egypt. But beyond all doubt the 
 Christian Eeligion furnishes the best example of the 
 growth of an elaborate doctrinal system. And it 
 is the only system which has a direct and living 
 interest for Western peoples. In the present 
 paper theology is used exclusively in its Christian 
 reference. 
 
 Like every other religion, Christianity did not 
 establish itself, in the first instance, on a doctrinal 
 foundation. Beliefs there were, of course, but they 
 were relatively few and simple, and faith was 
 intimately united to life. But as the spiritual 
 movement grew and gathered strength, as it passed 
 beyond the limits of the Jewish people and appealed 
 to Gentiles reared under alien traditions and ideas, 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 293 
 
 it became necessary for the Church consciously to 
 realise and to put in intelligible form the outlines 
 of her teaching. And the task was the more urgent 
 from the fact that Christianity from a very early 
 period had to meet distortions and perversions of 
 what was felt to be true belief. The presence and 
 the oppositions of heresies forced the Church to 
 draw out with increasing fulness the details of the 
 orthodox creed. And by the end of the second 
 century the phrase TO 8o'y//,a became current as the 
 sign of a doctrine accepted by the Church. The 
 dogma was regarded as the intelligible formula- 
 tion of a truth implied in the common Christian 
 consciousness. And with the multiplication of 
 doctrinal principles, it became necessary to connect 
 and organise them in a systematic way. 
 
 The important part played by Hellenism in the 
 development of the Church's theology has been 
 widely recognised. The formal terms in which the 
 early theologians expressed their doctrines were 
 borrowed from Greek thought, through the medium 
 of Hellenism, and the form could not but react 
 upon the matter. And in the Greek language the 
 thinkers of the Church had an instrument to express 
 the subtle distinctions they desired to draw. But 
 over and above this, we find philosophy affecting 
 theology in a more direct way in the work of 
 the Alexandrine School. In the first and second 
 
294 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 centuries the pseudo-philosophy of the Gnostics had 
 offered itself as a larger and more profound inter- 
 pretation of Christianity. But though the fantastic 
 constructions of Gnosticism were rejected, some at 
 least were disposed to admit that its general prin- 
 ciple was right. There was a higher wisdom to 
 which the philosopher could attain. This yvaxris 
 was a moris enrior^fAoi/ucq faith elevated by know- 
 ledge so said Clement of Alexandria. The philo- 
 sopher, in this view, was able to grasp by thought 
 the meaning of the dogma which the common 
 Christian consciousness held by faith. Between 
 knowledge and faith there was no antagonism. 
 The influence of speculative thought on the 
 Church's theology is still more apparent in 
 Clement's great pupil Origen. Some of Origen's 
 theories, like that of the eternal generation of the 
 Son, the Church accepted as true ; others, like that 
 of the eternal creation of the world, she rejected 
 as false. But it is clear that while the Church, 
 through her councils, claimed to be the judge of 
 what was Catholic truth, she was not disposed to 
 refuse the aid of the philosopher in helping her 
 to a more profound interpretation of Christian 
 doctrine. 
 
 When we pass to mediaeval times, we find 
 the religious atmosphere and outlook changed. 
 The formative period has passed, dogma has 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 295 
 
 hardened down into fixed form, and the work of 
 the theologian is to systematise. The fundamental 
 assumption of Scholasticism is the truth of the 
 dogma : reason may support the dogma, but can- 
 not alter it. One thinker in the ninth century, 
 Scotus Erigena, had shown a speculative boldness 
 which recalls Origen, but it was at the expense 
 of being considered heretical. 1 And in the eleventh 
 century Anselm's words, " credo ut intelligam," set 
 forth the spirit of the movement. Keason is to 
 be valued as the ancilla fidei, but it must not 
 alter or criticise the faith. Nevertheless, if the 
 Church's theology could be buttressed and con- 
 firmed by the Aristotelian Philosophy, this was 
 tacitly to admit the independent authority, and 
 in a sense the superiority, of the philosophic 
 reason to the dogma. Philosophy, ostensibly the 
 handmaid of theology, was in a way to become 
 the mistress. And though this drastic change 
 was not accomplished by Scholasticism, yet reason 
 became a disintegrating influence on the structure 
 of mediaeval theology. This appears in the 
 theory of the "double truth" held by Occam and 
 the later schoolmen. What was true in philosophy 
 might be false in theology, and what was true 
 
 1 In one place, speaking of God, Erigena says, " Deus propter emi- 
 nentiam non immerito nihil vocatur." One does not wonder that his 
 orthodoxy was doubted. 
 
296 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 in theology might be false in philosophy. Such 
 a position, from the intellectual point of view, 
 was virtually suicidal : and if those who adopted 
 it found it convenient, it is not likely that many 
 of them took it seriously. The inevitable result 
 was the abandonment of the assumption on which 
 Scholastic theology rested ; and the birth of the 
 Eeformation signalised the open revolt of reason 
 against the dogmatic system of the mediaeval 
 Church. 
 
 The theology of the Eeformed Churches was 
 not reared by the help of speculative thought. 
 It represented in the main an endeavour to cut 
 away what was judged to be false in Komish 
 doctrine, and to build up a system of theology 
 on biblical lines. Nor was philosophy itself in a 
 condition to aid in the work of reconstruction. 
 Condemned for centuries to a merely formal 
 activity, it had to come in contact with reality, 
 to find content in the fresh movements of science 
 and social life, ere it could rise to an effective 
 development and make its voice heard in matters 
 of faith. 
 
 There is one episode, however, in the space 
 between the Eeformation and the beginning of 
 last century to which it may be instructive to 
 refer. I mean the Deistic controversy and the 
 discussions on " natural religion," which extended 
 
tfie Ritschlian Standpoint. 297 
 
 from the middle of the seventeenth well into the 
 eighteenth century. Here rational thought takes 
 up a distinctive attitude to "revealed religion" 
 as represented in the theology of the Church. 
 That attitude was both positive and negative. 
 Positive, in so far as the English rationalistic 
 thinkers held that there was a core of truth 
 beneath the doctrines of the Church ; negative, 
 in so far as they held that this truth was to 
 be reached by an external process of cutting away 
 the overgrown branches of the theological tree, 
 and reducing it to the bare stem of rational re- 
 ligion the religion endorsed by the natural light 
 of reason in man. The idea of a simple, clear- 
 cut, and universally intelligible ' religion of nature,' 
 which is the norm of religious appreciation, is a 
 curious evidence of the limitations of the eight- 
 eenth century mind. That mind, as we all know, 
 was not historical. Eeason to it meant the logical 
 understanding, a ready-made instrument, not a 
 developing capacity. It construed history by the 
 light of fictions of its own creation. ' Natural 
 religion' was an artificial product, just as were 
 the 'state of nature' and 'natural rights.' Hence 
 a sympathetic view of religious development, and 
 of the growth of dogma as an aspect of that 
 development, lay beyond the mental horizon of 
 the eighteenth century thinkers. No fruitful 
 
298 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 application of speculative ideas to the content of 
 religion was possible. Even Kant, in so many 
 ways the herald of a new age, was still largely 
 influenced by the ideas of the past. His reflexions 
 on the subject of religion were entitled " Eeligion 
 within the Limits of Mere Beason," and in his 
 general treatment of religion the influence of the 
 eighteenth century is unmistakable. 
 
 This sober rationalism melted away in that 
 wonderful spring-time of speculative ardour and 
 religious interest which marked the early decades 
 of the nineteenth century in Germany. The 
 Eomantic movement, headed by Schleiermacher, 
 and the far-reaching systems of the Post-Kantian 
 thinkers, were in different ways instrumental in 
 bringing philosophic ideas into living contact with 
 theological doctrines. The speculative keenness and 
 confidence which were inspired by the * kings of 
 thought' bore fruit in numerous attempts to give 
 a philosophical interpretation of the main dogmas 
 of Christianity. Between 1830 and 1850 the 
 German mind was extraordinarily active in the 
 department of speculative theology, as any reader 
 may satisfy himself who consults a good history 
 of the movement. 1 
 
 In the first essay I have indicated the general 
 standpoint of those who sought to recast and re- 
 
 1 Vid. Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 299 
 
 interpret religious doctrine on Hegelian principles. 
 The old contrast of TTLCTTLS and y^oio-is had a 
 counterpart in the distinction of Vorstellung and 
 Begriff. But the speculative theologian claimed 
 the right to criticise, reject, or transform religious 
 dogma by reference to the philosophical idea of 
 religion. That there was, after all, a certain in- 
 definiteness in this idea, was apparent from the 
 very different valuations put on the doctrines of 
 the Church by those who professed to share the 
 same philosophic principles. The doctrine which 
 one thinker reduced to a myth another thought 
 worthy of a speculative interpretation 1 . With the 
 decadence of faith in the principles which the 
 speculative theologians sought to apply to religious 
 doctrines their work gradually fell into disrepute. 
 The mind of the theologian, it was urged, must 
 not be warped by preconceived ideas. He must 
 bring an open mind to the study of Christian 
 development, and he must recognise that feeling 
 and will play a larger part than thought in 
 religious evolution. The growth of Christian 
 doctrine, for example, is not to be reduced to a 
 progress through antagonism of ideas as it seemed 
 to the Tubingen School, but should be connected 
 with the practical needs, interests, and aspirations 
 
 1 Daub, for instance, speculatively constructs the person of the 
 Devil. To theologians of the type of Strauss this was folly. 
 
300 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 which entered into the life of the Church. We 
 ought to stand close to the historic facts in the 
 fulness of their meaning. And a doctrine has 
 meant more for the religious mind than can be 
 represented in general notions. 
 
 It will not now be denied that there is truth in 
 these contentions. To some this truth has seemed 
 so all-important that they declare that, in its basis 
 and methods, theology must be purely historical. 
 In Germany, once its home, speculative theology 
 to-day receives no courteous treatment at the hands 
 of theologians ; and for a generation their attitude 
 to it has been in the main hostile. I have already 
 referred to the leading part played in the reaction- 
 ary movement by the large and influential Bitschlian 
 School. 1 A year or two ago Harnack, in the intro- 
 duction to those eloquent and illuminating lectures 
 which he delivered to the Berlin students on " What 
 is Christianity?" remarked, " Had we held these lec- 
 tures sixty years ago, we should have occupied our- 
 selves in trying to find a general idea of religion by 
 speculation, and in determining the Christian (idea) 
 in accordance with it. Only we have justly grown 
 sceptical about this procedure. Latet dolus in 
 generalibus. We know to-day that life does not 
 admit of being compassed by universal notions." 2 
 And these words of the distinguished historian of 
 
 1 See Essay I. 2 Das Wesen des Christenthums, pp. 5, 6. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 301 
 
 dogma express the mind of that numerous group of 
 theologians who treat religious problems after the 
 method and in the spirit of Eitschl. The followers 
 of Eitschl differ among themselves in their epis- 
 temology, and in the value they attach to particular 
 dogmas and religious movements, but they are all 
 at one with the master in maintaining that meta- 
 physics cannot help theology, and must be sternly 
 excluded from it. Non tali auxilio, nee defens- 
 oribus istis ! 
 
 Some fifteen or twenty years ago the Ritschlian 
 theology was little known in this country. And 
 such verdicts as were passed on it were, in the 
 main, unfavourable. But now signs of a change 
 of attitude are not wanting. The monistic idealism 
 which traced its inspiration to Kant and Hegel does 
 not command the same assent : and a philosophic 
 movement which tends to subordinate thought to 
 will, the theoretical to the personal and practical 
 aspect of life, has made its appearance. As yet the 
 partisans of the movement are chiefly engaged in 
 clearing the ground for themselves by a vigorous 
 assault on the philosophic powers that be. The 
 elements of value in their gospel will be better 
 judged when they have constructively developed 
 their principles. Meanwhile the sympathetic hear- 
 ing accorded to the new views is a sign that older 
 forms of speculation are ceasing to satisfy. And it 
 
302 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 may be supposed that this change in the philosophic 
 temper of our time will help in disposing the theo- 
 logically-minded to give a favourable reception to 
 the Eitschlian system. Indeed there are signs that 
 this is already the case. Where not so long ago 
 Kitsehlianism would have been condemned for its 
 lack of philosophic basis, it now receives attentive 
 and appreciative study. That this theology, laying 
 stress as it does exactly on those points where 
 speculative idealism was weak, has a function to 
 fulfil in the development of religious thought I do 
 not doubt. But there are good reasons why the 
 Bitschlian standpoint should not be accepted as a 
 whole. I must, however, limit as far as possible 
 the discussion to a single, if prominent, aspect of 
 the system. We are at present concerned with the 
 question, whether Eitschl and his followers success- 
 fully justify the exclusion of philosophy from theo- 
 logy. When we have sufficiently considered this 
 point, we will state our own view on the relation of 
 the one to the other. 
 
 According to Kitschl the fundamental fact for 
 Christian theology is the revelation of God in 
 Christ. 1 This is the basis of the Kingdom of God, 
 
 1 In this examination of Eitschlianism I have used at one or two 
 points an article of my own, published a good many years ago in 
 the American 'Presbyterian Eeview.' English readers will find a 
 clear and fair-minded statement of KitschFs system in Dr Garvie's 
 book, * The Kitschlian Theology.' Instructive criticisms are con- 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 303 
 
 the spiritual society founded by Christ, in which 
 man realises his freedom and works out his religious 
 vocation. The idea of the kingdom of God, as the 
 highest good of Christian men, is the central idea 
 in the light of which Ritschl constructs his doctrinal 
 system. Hence for him a particular historical mani- 
 festation guides and controls the working out of 
 Christian Dogmatics. The Christian consciousness, 
 which expresses itself in value -judgments, affirms 
 the Kingdom of God to be the supreme good. And 
 it is by judgments of value in relation to the King- 
 dom that the attributes of God, the person and 
 work of Christ, and the practical religious life are 
 determined for the Christian consciousness. Putting 
 it generally, we may say that the Christian conscious- 
 ness, from the content of which Christian doctrine 
 is evolved, has an objective and a subjective side. 
 The former is the fact of revelation, the latter is 
 the judgment by which faith affirms the value of 
 that revelation for the inner life. Through these 
 two factors, then, we are supplied with the materials 
 for constructing a theology positive and historical, 
 which is without any admixture of the baser ele- 
 
 tained in the English translation of Prof. Pfleiderer's * Philosophy of 
 Eeligion ' and in his ' Development of Theology. 5 In his ' Unterricht 
 in der christlichen Eeligion, 3 Ritschl has given a clear and useful 
 outline of his theology. The full exposition of his system is contained 
 in his great work in three volumes, * Die christliche Lehre der Eecht- 
 fertiguug und Versohnung.' 
 
304 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 ment of metaphysics. And so to theologians, to 
 quote the words of Herrmann, " Whether philosophy 
 be deistic, pantheistic, theistic, or whatever it is, is 
 a matter of indifference. 1 
 
 It is of course inevitable that a theology, which 
 is built up by personal value-judgments operating 
 on the historic fact of the Christian Eevelation, 
 should at many points be antagonistic to ecclesias- 
 tical dogma. Eitschl and his followers are at no 
 pains to conceal this antagonism. For the dog- 
 matic system of the Churches has been leavened 
 by metaphysical thought, due largely to Greek 
 influence, and is therefore no satisfactory state- 
 ment of objective Christian Revelation. Hence, 
 in their reconstruction of Christian doctrine, the 
 Ritschlians eliminate the metaphysical element and 
 replace it by the practical aspect. Instead of the 
 ecclesiastical doctrines of the Trinity, the meta- 
 physical attributes of God, the transcendent nature 
 of Christ, they substitute such practical interpre- 
 tations of these as are made possible by bringing 
 them into organic relation with Christ's Kingdom 
 as the supreme end. The eternal and divine nature 
 of Christ, for instance, simply means that He had 
 an eternal place in the divine world-plan which 
 embraced the kingdom, and that his person has the 
 religious value of God for the Christian community. 
 
 1 Quoted by Pfleiderer, Phil, of Keligion (Eng. trans.), vol. ii. p. 100. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 305 
 
 An exposition or a criticism of the Kitschlian 
 theology is not our task at present. But one may 
 express appreciation of its boldness and decision 
 of purpose. Kitschl was always resolved to call 
 his soul his own; and antagonism to movements 
 he disliked exercised a considerable influence in 
 fixing his own standpoint. One can also admire 
 the persistency with which certain fundamental 
 principles are kept in sight in the system, and 
 the unity of spirit and method which characterises 
 it. Nor is it a slight merit that the School should 
 lift up its voice with courage and conviction against 
 the dead weight of ecclesiastical dogma, and demand 
 a return to what is practical and historical. For 
 those at all events who are unfettered by tradition, 
 and can read the signs of the times, recognise that 
 reconstruction is inevitable, if the study of theology 
 is to be pursued with more than an antiquarian 
 interest. Last, but not least, Eitschlians have done 
 a real service in insisting on the indispensable office 
 of the value-judgment in the religious consciousness. 
 The tendency of speculative theologians had been 
 to ignore this, and to the disadvantage of their 
 work. 
 
 We have still to ask, however, if Kitschl and his 
 followers are really successful in eliminating meta- 
 physics from theology, and in showing that the 
 latter can be quite independent of the former. 
 
 u 
 
306 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 The reply to this question must be in the nega- 
 tive. Indeed Eitschl's contemporary, Lipsius, said 
 no more than the truth when he declared that 
 Eitschl's rejection of philosophical principles was 
 ostensible rather than real. 1 It may conduce to 
 clearness if I state, under separate heads, what 
 seem to me the main objections to the Eitschlian 
 position on this point. 
 
 I. The rejection of metaphysics by the Eitschlian 
 school is not thorough, although it claims to be so. 
 Even those who deeply distrust metaphysics have 
 usually some metaphysical presuppositions on which 
 they take stand in delivering their attack upon it. 
 Eitschl himself develops an epistemological theory 
 with the aid of Kant and Lotze, which forms the 
 introduction to his theology. As the result of this 
 he is able to define the sphere and function of the 
 theoretical and of the value-judgment, and to de- 
 termine the limitations of the former. By its own 
 means, he tells us, theoretical knowledge cannot 
 at all attain to a highest universal law of existence. 
 The idea of the world as a totality is not due to 
 philosophy but to the religious consciousness. Yet 
 finally Eitschl is led to conclude that, if we set 
 out from the Christian idea of God, a theoretical 
 knowledge of the world as a totality is still 
 possible. "If theoretical knowledge will not re- 
 
 1 Glauben und Wissen, p. 324. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 307 
 
 nounce the attempt to comprehend the co-ordina- 
 tion of nature and spiritual life, it must accept 
 the Christian idea of God as scientifically valid 
 truth." One might argue against this statement 
 that the idea of the world-unity is implied in the 
 exercise of reason, and is not a pure gift of revealed 
 religion. But apart from this the passage quoted 
 shows that Ritschl was in the end disposed to 
 grant, albeit in a half-hearted way, a liberty of 
 philosophising under certain conditions. The in- 
 complete exclusion of philosophy from theology is 
 further shown in the Ritschlian treatment of the 
 idea of God. The idea is supposed to be entirely 
 given through the value- judgment in which the 
 religious consciousness expresses itself. If so, it 
 cannot contain elements which fall outside per- 
 sonal experience. That Ritschl really includes 
 such elements in his exposition of the divine 
 Idea can hardly be doubted. In point of fact, he 
 tries to formulate in general terms the conditions 
 which produce in man the conception of God. His 
 theory is related to the Kantian. " The idea of 
 God in religious knowledge is attached to the 
 condition that man sets himself over against the 
 world, and makes his position in it, or over it, 
 sure through trust in God." 1 That is to say, the 
 
 1 Lehre der Eechtfertigung und Versohnung, iii. 204. The theory 
 of the genesis of the idea of God as a Hilfsvorstellung, or helping-con- 
 
308 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 idea of God helps man over the opposition between 
 his spiritual consciousness and his natural limita- 
 tions, and assures to him his freedom. Now the 
 value -judgment which gives us the idea of God 
 cannot also give us the universal conditions which 
 make itself possible. These can only be stated as 
 the result of theoretical reflexion which goes beyond 
 what is given in particular experience. Kitschl's 
 epistemology of the religious consciousness, what- 
 ever we may think of it, is a theory elaborated 
 by reflective thought, which states in general terms 
 the meaning of the object of faith. It cannot be 
 said that this is presented or directly involved in 
 Christian experience. Again, in exhibiting the 
 Christian idea of God, as given in revelation and 
 verified by the value - judgment, it is hard to 
 maintain that Eitschl keeps within the limits laid 
 down. The thought of the time at least exerts a 
 regulative influence upon him. And his views of 
 the eternity, unity, and the omnipresence of God 
 can scarcely be traced to the value-judgments of 
 Christian experience. 
 
 II. Ritschl's theology claims to be non-speculative 
 because it pretends to be purely historical. It rests 
 on a historic revelation. And I would urge that 
 
 ception, is a weak point in the Kitschlian system, and stands in the 
 way of the full recognition of the truth, that God is directly related 
 to the spiritual life of the individual and completes it. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 309 
 
 the narrow Kitschlian conception of revelation is 
 not tenable. For, be it remembered, it is denied 
 that philosophic thought, by the examination of 
 general experience, can show that such a revelation 
 is even possible. Christianity, according to Eitschl, 
 stands in no vital relation to other religions, nor 
 will he allow that there is any universal conscious- 
 ness of God. Hence there is no proper sphere for 
 a philosophy of religion, which seeks to arrive at 
 the essential meaning of religion, through the re- 
 flective study of its history. But this emphasis on 
 an objective revelation, single and unique, carries 
 with it serious difficulties. By divorcing Chris- 
 tianity from the general development of religion 
 its appearance becomes a mystery, which is in no 
 way lessened by insisting that it is a fact. For a 
 fact loses meaning in isolation. And if revelation, 
 as Kitschl conceives it, did take place and diffused 
 itself among men, it would still imply a capacity 
 to receive it : this argues a common relation to 
 God, not created by revelation, but involved in the 
 nature of the human spirit itself. If there were 
 not a common though undeveloped consciousness of 
 God involved in the nature of mind, what could 
 revelation appeal to ? The inherent difficulty of 
 a pure religious empiricism, which will not allow 
 even a regulative function to philosophic thought, 
 becomes clearer when we ask how the definite 
 
3 1 o Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 content of revelation is to be determined. No one 
 will contend that the content of revealed truth will 
 be immediately certain to any one who examines the 
 Christian canonical writings. Kitschl himself used 
 considerable freedom in dealing with them. This 
 is still more marked in the case of his distinguished 
 follower Harnack, who frankly admits that there 
 is a good deal in New-Testament literature which 
 will not satisfy the demands of modern criticism. 
 In his lecture on " Christianity and History," he 
 labours to show that, behind these accretions, 
 there is a core which constitutes the objective 
 fact of revelation. 1 And he says that this fact is 
 certified by the effect it produces. Yet if the 
 essence of Christianity were generally apparent 
 through its effects, would there have been so much 
 dispute about what the essence was ? Mere ex- 
 perience will not define the content of revelation, 
 if the experience of one man does not coincide with 
 that of another. Nor is it possible to separate 
 out of the historic development of Christian ex- 
 perience certain elements which have remained 
 fixed and constant in their significance throughout. 
 Indeed, Eitschlians bring with them to the selection 
 and valuation of historic materials an idea of true 
 religion which is not impressed on them from 
 
 1 The lecture is now included in the 2nd volume of his ' Eeden 
 und Aufsatze.' 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 311 
 
 without. It really, as we think, presupposes theo- 
 retical reflexion on their part, and it involves them 
 in the rejection of not a little which others claim 
 to belong to the content of revealed religion. In 
 the light of the ideal of what constitutes revelation 
 an ideal which is no pure deduction from history 
 the theologians of the School regard the later 
 dogmatic developments of the Church very un- 
 favourably. They see there an object-lesson of the 
 fatal results which follow the union of metaphysics 
 with theology. Yet the germs of these metaphysi- 
 cal developments may be found in the Pauline and 
 Johannine literature. And those whose standpoint 
 is severely historical can hardly prove that these 
 germs represent the intrusion of an alien element 
 into the body of the Christian faith. Put briefly, 
 our point is that Ritschlians, who are constantly 
 able to distinguish pure Christianity from its 
 false accretions, are going on a standard of valua- 
 tion which has been elaborated by thought out of 
 experience, and is not immediately given in ex- 
 perience. In short, though the claim to build a 
 theology on a purely historic basis is plausible, 
 and appeals to those who desire to have done with 
 subjective opinion and prejudice and to rest on the 
 firm ground of fact, the principle cannot be con- 
 sistently worked out in practice. Eeason, we are 
 told, must bow in silence before fact. But we are 
 
312 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 not so much impressed by the dictum, when we 
 find that reason has asserted itself in determining 
 what is fact. 
 
 III. The conviction that thought exercises no con- 
 stitutive function in religion led Kitschl to maintain 
 that this constitutive office is entirely fulfilled by 
 the value -judgments. In this he has been gen- 
 erally, if not universally, followed by the theo- 
 logians of the School. 1 This exaltation of the 
 value-judgment is the outcome of a psychology 
 which acknowledges the primacy and dominance 
 of will in the personal life. In the case of the 
 Eitschlian movement this feature has a connexion 
 with the stress laid on the practical reason by 
 Kant. Now, that judgments of value play an im- 
 portant part in religion has been fully admitted. 
 But the point is whether theology, as a science, 
 can be reared on this basis. For the characteristic 
 of the value-judgment is, that it only defines the 
 object in so far as it affects the subject. And 
 theology must therefore be restricted to dealing 
 with the objects of faith only as they reveal them- 
 
 1 Kaftan, I understand, holds that the theoretical judgment may 
 play a part in religion on the basis given by the value- judgment. It 
 would be an exaggeration to say that Eitschlians believe that what 
 is true for the one form of judgment may be false for the other. 
 But the dualism between them is left standing, and no effort after 
 unification is made. One would at least desire the recognition of 
 unity as an ideal we must strive after. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 3 1 3 
 
 selves, or enter into the experience of persons. 
 That Kitschl succeeded in keeping his theology 
 within the limits thus laid down, we have already 
 seen reason to doubt. A still more serious difficulty 
 is the element of subjectivity which will cling to 
 theological propositions, whose only guarantee is 
 judgments of value. For there is nothing in the 
 mere experience of value which invests the ex- 
 perience with any element of necessity, or lays us 
 under the obligation of believing that our ex- 
 perience must be that of other people. Nor does 
 revelation, conceived as an objective fact, offer a 
 means by which we can free ourselves from this 
 difficulty. For the only mode of determining and 
 appreciating revelation is subjective i.e., the way 
 it affects us. 
 
 No doubt it would be unfair to suggest that the 
 value- judgments of religion are merely the isolated, 
 and it may be inconsistent, utterances of individuals. 
 They have a certain unity of ground. Christian 
 experience expresses itself through individuals, who 
 are spiritually what they are in and through their 
 membership in a living Christian community. In 
 this way it might seem we have a normative body 
 of value-judgments, on which a theological system 
 may be developed. This argument is not without 
 weight. There is a sense in which those who are 
 living the life together know the truth of the 
 
314 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 doctrine. But none the less an empirical generalisa- 
 tion will not guarantee its own objective validity. 
 And it seems to me we can only find security for 
 the objective reference of the value -judgments of 
 Christian experience if we take them in connexion 
 with, and make them supplement and complete, the 
 objective determinations of reason. For then our 
 judgments of value, which represent the demands of 
 the inner life, give spiritual content to the more 
 formal but objective determination of the Divine 
 Being by thought. If we follow Eitschl, however, 
 and deny that thought is a constitutive element 
 of religion, even the appeal to that general Christian 
 experience which is based on revelation will not 
 help us beyond the subjective standpoint to the 
 firm ground of the objective and universal. For all 
 we have to go on is the fact of this experience : we 
 cannot say why this experience should be, and that 
 it is the expression of universal principles. Accord- 
 ingly the experience of the Christian Church can 
 only be authoritative to the individual, in so far as 
 he shares it, and can verify it in his own personal 
 judgments of value. And at the most he can only 
 have a limited empirical assurance that his own 
 valuations hold good for other persons. We have 
 certainly no right to say that they must do so, if 
 we are true to Eitschlian principles. 
 
 Indeed, I believe Eitschlians regard the valua- 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 315 
 
 tions of the Christian consciousness as more con- 
 sistent and coherent than they really are. It would 
 not be difficult to show that the values on which 
 the Christian mind of one age laid stress did not fill 
 the same place in another age. Christians of the 
 fourth century were no doubt persuaded that a 
 metaphysical theology was involved in the needs of 
 a spiritual life. Many of their descendants in these 
 days do not find that this theology stands in a vital 
 relation to practical religion. Again, the Catholic 
 of the middle age judged an authoritative Church 
 to be of high value in supplying his spiritual wants : 
 the Protestant, on the other hand, accentuated the 
 worth of personal faith. In truth, the broad ethical 
 conceptions of value developed by Christian experi- 
 ence may be used as indicating what the spiritual 
 consciousness postulates in the object of its faith. 
 But it is a very different thing to make them the 
 exclusive basis of theological construction. Value- 
 judgments do not fulfil the conditions of the old 
 canon of Catholicity, " Quod semper, quod ubique, 
 quod ab omnibus." And the theologian has to go 
 beyond the narrow and uncertain basis they supply. 
 This is still more evident if we consider, as I think 
 we must do, the Christian consciousness in relation 
 to the general religious consciousness of mankind. 
 For then the differences in valuation are much 
 greater. Yet if we refuse to do this how can we 
 
3 1 6 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 justify the claim of Christianity to be a universal 
 religion ? How can we assert that in principle it 
 is the highest and fullest expression of that rela- 
 tion of sonship in which all men stand to God ? 
 
 If the foregoing arguments are well-founded, 
 Ritschlianism has not proved that theology can 
 successfully dispense with metaphysics. But though 
 this be granted, it may still be contended that 
 theology cannot afford to be allied with, or to be 
 dependent on, secular philosophy. Christian revela- 
 tion, it is urged, is a fact of supreme importance, 
 and it must decisively determine our views of the 
 world and man. Therefore theology must develop 
 its own metaphysics, for metaphysics in independ- 
 ence cannot by any means yield results of the same 
 value. 1 
 
 This standpoint is of the nature of a compromise. 
 It commends itself to those who recognise the diffi- 
 culty of banishing all speculative reflexion from 
 theology, and who nevertheless distrust the capacity 
 of any philosophy to deal with religious problems 
 if it does not rest on certain Christian presupposi- 
 tions. That the advocates of this view have some- 
 thing to say on their side is probably true. Christian 
 experience is an important fact, and philosophy 
 
 1 This view, for instance, is put forward by Dr Garvie, vid. ' The 
 Ritschlian Theology,' pp. 68, 69, 392, 393. And it was at least sug- 
 gested by Kitschl himself, if never definitely set forth. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 317 
 
 must take it into account in forming its conception 
 of the world as a whole. The demands of the 
 higher spiritual nature enter into the meaning of 
 the world which thought seeks to explain. For the 
 rest, the idea of a separate and independent 
 Christian metaphysics seems to us wrong in con- 
 ception and unworkable in practice. It cannot, of 
 course, be contended that there is any dualism in 
 reason : the thinking process of the Christian meta- 
 physician is the same as that of the ordinary 
 metaphysician. The difference between them is, 
 that the latter reaches his principles from the study 
 of general experience, the former evolves them from 
 a particular experience. And in the second place, 
 Christian metaphysics so conceived takes certain 
 historic facts as normative in forming its theory. 
 
 Such a Christian philosophy would claim to be 
 generally valid. In which case its postulates would 
 require to commend themselves to reason as worthy 
 of general acceptance. Now in a case where postu- 
 lates imply an interpretation of history an inter- 
 pretation presenting peculiar difficulties and involv- 
 ing in the end a demand on faith it would be too 
 much to expect agreement. Even those who speak 
 from within the Church would not be at one about 
 the basis, which the Christian faith offers to specu- 
 lative thought for development. But suppose we 
 waive this objection. Grant that Christian meta- 
 
3 1 8 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 physics is in a position to develop its theory. Then 
 it may either create or borrow the general notions 
 which it employs. If the former, it could only 
 justify their extension to the wider realm of ex- 
 perience by examining and criticising them in rela- 
 tion to experience, and this in the spirit of meta- 
 physics in its wider sense. And the process could 
 not be carried out unless the original postulates 
 were reconsidered and tested in the light of general 
 experience. If the latter, then in accepting from 
 philosophy conceptions such as cause, substance, and 
 end, as valid in experience, it has ceased in any 
 strict sense to be independent. 
 
 Moreover, in regard to its method we must criti- 
 cise adversely this idea of a Christian metaphysics. 
 It takes the Christian consciousness by itself, and 
 on this basis proposes to develop its speculative 
 theory. But Christianity would have been histori- 
 cally unintelligible, if it had been without organic 
 relation to the prior 1 development of the religious 
 consciousness. And no theory which treats it in 
 isolation can do justice to its contents. A Christian 
 metaphysics, from the nature of its object-matter, 
 must begin by broadening out into a philosophy of 
 religion. Finally, I would urge that no metaphysics 
 can give a satisfactory theory of reality by inter- 
 preting all experience through one of its phases. 
 Keligion itself is only one aspect of experience. 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 3 1 9 
 
 And however philosophy may come short in its 
 task, it has to think things together and as ele- 
 ments in a whole. For it is catholic in its outlook, 
 and tries to do justice to all the aspects of the 
 complex experience with which it deals. This im- 
 partial and objective treatment is a condition of its 
 success, because our insight into the meaning of the 
 whole depends on the degree in which we have been 
 able to perceive the connexion of the parts and 
 their mutual interdependence. It might be argued 
 that a Christian metaphysics is also in a position 
 to think things together. This is true to the extent 
 that it tries to show how the whole is related to one 
 of the parts. But it interprets the significance of 
 the part in isolation to begin with, and so cannot 
 guarantee the validity of its principles for experi- 
 ence as a whole. I fear, too, that the record of 
 history does not encourage us to expect that this 
 kind of religious metaphysics would be convincing 
 in its treatment of speculative problems. And it- 
 would only gain in strength and in breadth of 
 appeal by ceasing to be, what it set out by claim- 
 ing to be, independent of the general speculative 
 thought of the age. 
 
 If, then, theology is not able to create its own 
 metaphysics, and if we cannot keep theology rigidly 
 apart from philosophy, we must ask finally if the 
 two may not fruitfully and helpfully be connected 
 
320 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 with one another. I venture to offer a few remarks 
 on the point, which, to some extent perhaps, may 
 suggest an answer to the question. 
 
 Theology on any view is not a purely speculative 
 science. It has practical ends to serve the in- 
 struction of a Christian community and these it 
 must keep before it. It builds on the basis of 
 Christian experience, as contained in biblical litera- 
 ture and the tradition of the Church, and it has to 
 formulate doctrines from this experience, and to 
 present them in forms which will edify the existing 
 Christian consciousness. Therefore theology is, in 
 the first instance, a historical science, for it develops 
 its doctrines out of what has been historically ex- 
 perienced. The theologian makes certain presup- 
 positions on historical grounds, and he does not 
 arrive at his first principles by purely critical re- 
 flexion. Nor is this to be objected to in the cir- 
 cumstances. Theology is not philosophy, and does 
 not pretend to be so. But the articulation and 
 development of a system of doctrine is the work 
 of thought, and in the statement of its results 
 theology inevitably puts forward a general view 
 of the world. In giving determinate expression 
 to this view the earlier theologians made them- 
 selves debtors to the speculative heritage of the 
 past, and used it where they consistently could. 
 Nevertheless the theological Weltanschauung has 
 
the Ritschlian Standpoint. 321 
 
 commonly presented sharp points of contrast to 
 the philosophical ; and this might be expected 
 from the fact that the former sets out from par- 
 ticular, the latter from universal, experience. 
 
 Now it is just in forming this general view of 
 things that the need of co-operation between phil- 
 osophy and theology is evident. As a result of 
 the growth of science and the activity of phil- 
 osophic thought, new conceptions of the world have 
 been formed and exist alongside those which the 
 traditional theology presents to us. And where 
 there is opposition and contradiction between them, 
 reconciliation is called for. Both cannot be right, 
 and reason demands consistency. Theology can 
 only be indifferent to this demand at the expense 
 of losing its interest and vitality for the present 
 age : decadence is always the consequence of iso- 
 lation. In so far, then, as theology finds it neces- 
 sary to put forward a theoretical view of the 
 world which is in harmony with the knowledge 
 of the age, it must have the co-operation of phil- 
 osophy. The fear about the intrusion of a foreign 
 and hostile influence into theology under these 
 conditions argues a strange distrust of human 
 nature. For reason is one and the same, whether 
 it is exercised in the sphere of theology or meta- 
 physics ; and its effort, whatever be the object, 
 is to think out the meaning of the object 
 
 x 
 
322 Philosophy and Theology : 
 
 coherently. And as theology cannot exclude reason, 
 it must accept the task which reason imposes, 
 and strive after a view of things into which 
 the existing body of knowledge may enter con- 
 sistently. 
 
 In following out this, the theoretical aspect of 
 its mission, theology passes gradually into the 
 philosophy of religion. And Christian Dogmatics 
 has been treated by some in the spirit of a 
 religious philosophy. But though there is a real 
 contact between the two, it is not desirable that 
 theology should be identified with a philosophy of 
 religion. The former has a practical aspect, which 
 the latter has not. Then the object-matter of the 
 philosophy of religion is the religious consciousness 
 as a whole : it sets out to investigate this. But 
 theology begins by taking as its object-matter the 
 Christian consciousness and the historical experience 
 out of which it has grown. No doubt the Christian 
 consciousness is not to be isolated from the general 
 religious consciousness ; but we must remember that 
 the former has a special value on which the 
 theologian lays stress. He holds that the ex- 
 perience, which is the basis of his doctrine, has 
 an authority that does not belong, in the same 
 degree at least, to other manifestations of the 
 religious consciousness. And this fact has im- 
 portant bearings. Human knowledge is partial, 
 
the Ritscklian Standpoint. 323 
 
 and faith has a real part to play in life. If 
 the speculative reason could give us a complete 
 and convincing interpretation of the universe, it 
 might be urged that theology only states, in a 
 figurative form, ideas which are presented in their 
 true form in the system of philosophy. But if 
 we renounce, as we must do, any claim to com- 
 plete and absolute knowledge, then a theology, so 
 far as it succeeds in presenting in general and con- 
 nected fashion the truths involved in a divinely- 
 wrought experience, has a special significance and 
 value. 
 
 But the point we wish to press is that spiritual 
 experience is not to be severely separated from 
 general experience. Those who insist on doing this 
 appear to forget that the value they claim for 
 spiritual experience implies a contrasted aspect of 
 experience which makes the valuation possible. 
 And if theology, as the science of Christian ex- 
 perience, enters into relation with philosophy, as 
 the science of general experience, it is only follow- 
 ing out a connexion implied in its own existence. 
 Such a relation, if cultivated in the right spirit 
 by both sides, will be helpful. For neither in 
 theology any more than in philosophy do we have 
 a pure and final system of truth. Both are capable 
 of development, and live only as they develop. 
 Now though the unification attempted by specula- 
 
324 Philosophy and Theology, 
 
 tive science is provisional only, yet there are advan- 
 tages in considering religious doctrines in relation 
 to it. This lets us see in what degree our theology 
 coheres with experience, in so far as we are able 
 to think it as a consistent whole. Philosophy, 
 be it remembered, is in no position to discredit 
 the value of Christian experience. But it is in a 
 position to affect theology in its theoretical aspect. 
 For it will set problems to the theologian, and 
 indicate the line of advance. He will be led to 
 recognise the points where doctrine must be recast 
 and developed, and so brought into organic relation 
 with the growing whole of knowledge. 
 
 For these reasons I venture to doubt that the 
 Eitschlian standpoint will, in the long run, be 
 found to subserve the best interests of theological 
 science. The gospel of the limitation of knowledge 
 is a wholesome doctrine, but speculative agnosti- 
 cism is a dangerous kind of error. When faith 
 can give no reason for itself, and is constrained 
 to appeal simply to feeling, it is only another step 
 to the conclusion that religion is nothing but the 
 shadowy projection of human hopes and fears. 
 And then theology, once named the queen of the 
 sciences, becomes a futile endeavour to give form 
 and body to a baseless vision of our own creation. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Absolute, its relation to individ- 
 uals, 201 ; to God, 255, 256. 
 
 Activity, idea of, examined, 222- 
 224. 
 
 Anaxagoras, 41. 
 
 Ancestor- worship, 115-119. 
 
 Animism, 110 ff., 175. 
 
 Anselm, 295. 
 
 Apollo, 133. 
 
 Aristotle, 11 n. ; on the sciences, 
 51 ; final cause, 59 ; on choice, 
 66 ; view of matter, 189 n. ; 
 theology, 291. 
 
 Athene, 133. 
 
 Augustine, 90. 
 
 Avenarius, R., 171, 175. 
 
 Bacon, on final causes, 58. 
 Belief, and sentiment, 158. 
 Berkeley, 185 n. 
 Biedermann, A. E., his 'Dog- 
 
 matik,' 7, 8. 
 
 Bradley, F. H., 199, 229, 237 n. 
 Brahma, 131 n. ; 137. 
 Breath, primitive idea of, 174. 
 Buddhism, 143, 154. 
 
 Caird, E., 33; on evolution of 
 religion, 152 ff. ; on inner and 
 outer experience, 179 ff. ; 201. 
 
 Caird, J., his 'Philosophy of Re- 
 ligion,' 9, 10. 
 
 Causality, 55. 
 
 Cause, and end, 63, 64 ; and 
 ground, 218. 
 
 Character and freedom, 67 ff. 
 
 Christ, 141, 143, 304. 
 
 Christianity, 143, 144. 
 
 Christian metaphysics, 316 ff. 
 Cicero, 114. 
 Comte, 36. 
 
 Continuity, principle of, 61, 190; 
 in religious development, 148 ff. 
 Coulanges, F. de, 116, 117. 
 
 Dante, 286. 
 
 Darwin, C., 'Descent of Man,' 42, 
 
 43. 
 
 Deism, 296, 297. 
 Determinism, 67 ff. 
 Doctrine, growth of, 291 ff. 
 Dreams, in early culture, 112, 173. 
 
 Erigena, J. S., 295. 
 
 Ethical predicates, applied to God, 
 260, 261, 267. 
 
 Ethical societies, 48. 
 
 Ethics, a normative science, 63 ; 
 and Religion, 46 ff., 82-84. 
 
 Evolution, scientific idea of, 42, 43. 
 
 Experience, perceptual and con- 
 ceptual, 170, 171 ; in relation 
 to thought, 237, 238. 
 
 External experience, implies trans- 
 subjective, 185-188. 
 
 Faith, 85 ff., 145, 262, 263. 
 Feeling, and origin of religion, 
 
 107 ; it implies thought, 37, 
 
 108, 109. 
 
 Fetishism, 119, 120. 
 Fichte, J. G., 20. 
 Final Cause, 58, 59. 
 Finite personality, defects of, 252, 
 
 253. 
 Frazer, J. G., 121. 
 
326 
 
 Index. 
 
 Freedom, of will, 65 ff. ; its re- 
 lation to sin, 273, 274 ; social 
 aspect of, 71 ff. 
 
 God, not a pure unity, 256, 257 ; 
 the ground of religious con- 
 sciousness, 277 - 279 ; as im- 
 manent, 269, 276, 277 ; as 
 transcendent, 282-284. 
 
 Gods, of moment, 108, 109 ; social 
 meaning of gods, 132-134. 
 
 Goethe, 8, 132. 
 
 Greater gods, nature-origin of, 131, 
 132. 
 
 Green, T. H., 68, 79. 
 
 Harnack, A., 300, 310. 
 
 Hebrew prophets, 47, 143, 154. 
 
 Hegel, his 'Philosophy of Re- 
 ligion,' 3 ff. ; view of natural 
 sciences, 53, 54 ; 273 n. 
 
 Henotheism, 135. 
 
 Herrmann, 304. 
 
 Hoffding, his 'Philosophy of Re- 
 ligion,' 25 ff., 101. 
 
 Holy places, 113. 
 
 Homer, 112 n., 127 n., 138. 
 
 Ideal, and real self, 78-81. 
 
 Individual reals, 197, 198, 201, 
 228. 
 
 Individual selves, 247-249. 
 
 Individuals, influence on religious 
 development, 139 ff. 
 
 Inner and outer experience, genesis 
 of distinction, 173 ff. ; both de- 
 velop together, 180. 
 
 Inters ubjective intercourse, 171, 
 191. 
 
 Introjection, 171-173. 
 
 Isolation, unfavourable to religious 
 development, 129. 
 
 James, W., his ' Varieties of Reli- 
 gious Experience,' 30-32. 
 Jerusalem, W., 173 n. 
 Jones, H., 256 n. 
 Judgment, a feature of, 199. 
 Jupiter, 131, 138. 
 
 Kaftan, 18, 312 n. 
 Kant, 20, his 'Critique' and 
 natural sciences, 52, 53 ; on 
 
 inner and outer experience, 
 
 176 ff. ; on ontological proof, 
 
 239 ; on religion, 298. 
 Kathenotheism, 135. 
 Kingdom of God, Ritschlian idea 
 
 of, 302-304. 
 
 Lang, A., 122, 123. 
 
 Language, and religion, 104 ; and 
 thought, 171. 
 
 Laws of nature, 56, 57. 
 
 Leibniz, 61, 190, 192, 225, 245 n. 
 
 Lipsius, R. A., 23 n., 254, 306. 
 
 Locke, 189. 
 
 Lotze, his contribution to philos- 
 ophy of religion, 13 ff. ; on 
 value - judgment, 14, 15; on 
 space and time, 192 ; on ultimate 
 unity, 201, 202, 226, 227; on per- 
 sonality of the Absolute, 249 ff. 
 
 M'Taggart, J. E., 248, 249, 273 n. 
 
 Magic, 120-122. 
 
 Mars, 133. 
 
 Materialism, 45, 46. 
 
 Mechanism, and explanation, 60. 
 
 Menzies, A., 105. 
 
 Metaphysics and philosophy, task 
 of, 210. 
 
 Mill, J. S., 188. 
 
 Minor nature-worship, 113; rela- 
 tion to greater, 114. 
 
 Monarchism, 137, 138. 
 
 Monotheism, 137-139. 
 
 Moral obligation, and freedom, 64. 
 
 Morality, growth of, 73 ff. ; sub- 
 jective side of, 74, 75. 
 
 National religion, rise of, 129 ff. 
 
 Natural religion, 296, 297. 
 
 Natural sciences, their dispute 
 with Church, 42 ; method of, 
 55 ff. ; do not disprove freedom, 
 64, 65. 
 
 Necessity, scientific notion of, 57. 
 
 Nietzsche, 237 n. 
 
 Nirvana, 264. 
 
 Occam, 295. 
 Odin, 133. 
 
 Ontological proof, 239, 240. 
 Ontology of religion, its problem 
 and method, 217-219. 
 
Index. 
 
 327 
 
 Organic growth, idea as applied to 
 
 religion, 146 ff. 
 Origen, 294. 
 Osiris, 133. 
 
 Pantheism, 136, 137, 160. 
 
 Parmenides, 197. 
 
 Pascal, 25. 
 
 Paulsen, F., 202 n., 248 n. 
 
 Percepts and concepts, 184, 185. 
 
 Personality, its part in religious 
 development, 279 ff. 
 
 Personality of God, its relation to 
 religion, 284-286. 
 
 Pfleiderer, 0., his 'Philosophy of 
 Religion,' 10 ff. ; his view of 
 ontological argument, 239, 240. 
 
 Philosophy and Religion, differ- 
 ences between, 212 ff. 
 
 Philosophy of Religion, its relation 
 to Philosophy, 92, 93 ; to Reve- 
 lation, 281, 282 ; its standpoint, 
 211, 212. 
 
 Plato, and sciences, 50, 51 ; 86, 98, 
 283, 287. 
 
 Pluralism, arguments against, ex- 
 amined, 195 ff. 
 
 Polytheism, growth of, 131, 132. 
 
 Pragmatism, 33, 301. 
 
 Psychology, and religious develop- 
 ment, 101, 102, 158 ff. 
 
 Ra, 134. 
 
 Rationalism, 160. 
 
 Rauwenhoff, his ' Philosophy of 
 Religion,' 19 ff. 
 
 Reason and Religion, 36, 37. 
 
 Religion, and moral ideal, 82-84 ; 
 origin of, 103 ; a definition of, 
 105 ; factors involved in, 106 ; 
 implies a personal relation, 213. 
 
 Religious bond, meaning of, 276, 
 277. 
 
 "Religious consciousness," am- 
 biguity in, 163. 
 
 Religious development, its psycho- 
 logical key, 101, 102 ; an 
 endeavour after harmony, 164, 
 165, 274. 
 
 Reville, A., 113, 114. 
 
 Rita, 136. 
 
 Ritschl, A., his attitude to philo- 
 sophy, 17, 18, 306 ff. ; to ecclesi- 
 
 astical dogma, 304 ; his theo- 
 logy, 302 ff. ; view of value- 
 judgment, 312. 
 
 Ritual, reaction against, 142. 
 
 Rohde, E., 117 n. 
 
 Royce, J., 33, 228. 
 
 Sabatier, A., his 'Philosophy of 
 
 Religion,' 22 ff. 
 Sayce, A., 135. 
 Schelling, 107. 
 Schleiermacher and Romantic 
 
 School, 6, 33, 298. 
 Scholasticism, 295, 296. 
 Science and Religion, 41 ff. 
 Self, in relation to character, 68 ff. 
 Self -consciousness, importance of, 
 
 241, 242. 
 
 Self-realisation, 76 ff. 
 Sentiment, conservative force of, 
 
 129, 130. 
 Siebeck, H., his 'Philosophy of 
 
 Religion,' 16, 17 ; 285. 
 Sin, 272, 273. 
 Smith, W. R., 127 n. 
 Soul, and Absolute, 203, 204, 231. 
 Space and time, nature of, 192 ff. ; 
 
 not applicable to God, 257, 
 
 258. 
 
 Speculative theology, 298-300. 
 Spencer, H., 115. 
 Spinoza, 25, 26, 213. 
 Spiritism, 111 ff. 
 Statius, 107. 
 
 Stout, G. F., 173 n., 238 n. 
 Substances, idea of, 191, 202 ; 
 
 ground of their interaction, 
 
 224 ff. 
 Supreme Being, idea of, in early 
 
 culture, 122 ff. 
 
 Teleology, in nature and conduct, 
 
 63, 64. 
 
 Tertullian, 37. 
 Thales, 112. 
 Theism, and value- judgment, 265, 
 
 266. 
 
 Theistic proofs, 238 ff. 
 Theology, nature of, 320. 
 ' Thing in itself,' 189, 235. 
 Things and their qualities, 195, 
 
 196. 
 Thought, and reality, 198, 236 ff.; 
 
328 
 
 Index. 
 
 and the religious consciousness, 
 
 34-37. 
 Tian, 133. 
 Tiele, 98, 153, 156. 
 Totemism, 117-119. 
 Transsubjective, nature of, 188 if. 
 Tribal religion, features of, 124 ff. 
 Tylor, E. B., 98, 99, 116. 
 Tyndall, 45. 
 
 Unconscious will, 242 ff. 
 Unity and experience, 204, 205. 
 Universal religion, 145. 
 Universal self, 246 ff. 
 Usener, H., 108, 109, 126 n. 
 
 Value -judgment, 38, 91, 262 ff. 
 Vid. also Lotze, Ritschl. 
 
 Varuna, 133. 
 Veda, 137. 
 Vedanta, 137. 
 
 Ward, J., 60 n., 65, 171, 200. 
 
 Will, in relation to the organism, 
 232, 233 ; does not create 
 thought, 242-244. 
 
 World, religious view of, 88-90. 
 
 World-ground, compared to soul, 
 231 ; as will, 233-236 ; as self- 
 conscious, 241 ; not purely im- 
 manent, 246 ff. 
 
 Wundt, 202, 221, 260 n. 
 
 Xenophanes, 47, 135. 
 Zeus, 134, 138. 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 IV 1 
 
 1934 
 
 !2 1935 
 1934 
 
 29 1943 
 FEB 141967 6 
 
 RECE1V 
 
 7s P* 
 
 LJ) 21-100m-7,':!3