PREFACE.

It is now seventeen years since I published a book called 'An Essay on Pantheism.' That book has been for a long time out of print. Though often asked to issue another edition, I always hesitated because the magnitude of the subject seemed to increase the more I looked at it. Moreover, on the special subjects of some of the chapters, as Buddhism and Spinozism, much had in the meantime been written which required to be read and considered. I at length determined on another edition, but after re-writing and printing the first chapter I found it was necessary to make a new book. A large portion of the original matter has been retained but revised, retrenched, or enlarged, while several chapters have been added in which the argument is brought to a more definite issue.

Christianity and Pantheism must be reconciled, otherwise it will be the worse for Christianity,' are the words of one of the reviewers of the Essay on Pantheism.' The object of this book is to show not only that they can be reconciled, but that Christianity will be a great gainer by the reconciliation. Something which is called Pantheism is found invariably to be the ultimate utterance of reason on God and his relation to nature. Christianity, properly understood, will meet at the same goal. Objections to many Christian doctrines will be found to have no validity when these doctrines are considered apart from anthropomorphic conceptions of the Deity. Many controversies that have distracted the Christian Church will cease when it is clearly seen that though we may speak of God as if he were a man, yet that the Bible fully justifies us in speaking of him as if he were not a man. The dogmas or definitions of the Churches are not to be regarded as absolute truth, but as merely provisional expressions to be superseded by others as the human mind advances in its conception of what God is and

how he reveals himself to man. This was seen by Peter Lombard, who wisely said that 'the determinations of the Church were rather designed to exclude from the simplicity of the divine Essence than to put anything into it.' It will be seen from the following pages that not only schoolmen and fathers of the Church, but even Bible writers, have spoken of the superpersonality of God and of his immanency in the world in words often as startling as the words of those who are called Pantheists. They are all efforts to speak of God as he is, and their failing is the negative one of imperfection rather than of positive error. So far as they are genuine expressions of reason, at whatever stage of development and however varied their external forms, they will all be found to verge to a common meaning.

In the revision of what is retained of the 'Essay on Pantheism,' I have used largely Ueberweg's 'History of Philosophy,' translated by Professor Morris, with additions by Dr. Noah Porter. Had this valuable work existed twenty years ago, I should have been saved much labour. Many of the passages which I had translated from Greek or Latin authors, or other passages with the same meaning, are there given in the original. Among the eminent men with whom the former book brought me into correspondence or acquaintance, two, now no more, are never to be forgotten. One of them was Dr. John Muir of Edinburgh, who revised the chapter on the Indian religions, and took a special interest in the whole subject. The other was Dean Stanley, who honoured me with his friendship, and when he had an opportunity helped me by his patronage. Before I knew him personally, he wrote these characteristic words, 'I like your book, because it is inclusive not exclusive.'

OTFORD VICARAGE, SEVENOAKS,

19th October, 1883.

In the former book the impersonal deity of the Brahmans was written Brahm. In accordance with the recent custom of Sanscrit scholars, it is here written Brahmă (neu.), while the personal God is Brahmā (mas.).