,,god ,,the ,,known ,,and ,,god ,,the ,,unknown ,by ,samuel ,butler ,prefatory ,note ,,god the ,known and ,god the ,unknown first appeared in the form of a series of articles which were published in ,the ,examiner in ,may1 ,june1 and ,july1 #ahgi4 ,samuel ,butler subsequently revised the text of his work1 presumably with the intention of republishing it1 though he never carried the intention into effect4 ,in the present edition ,i have followed his revised version almost without deviation4 ,i have1 however1 retained a few passages which ,butler proposed to omit1 partly because they appear to me to render the course of his argument clearer1 and partly because they contain characteristic thoughts and expressions of which none of his admirers would wish to be deprived4 ,in the list of ,butler's works ,god the ,known and ,god the ,unknown follows ,life and ,habit1 which appeared in #ahgg1 and ,evolution1 ,old and ,new1 which was published in ,may1 #ahgi4 ,it is scarcely necessary to point out that the three works are closely akin in subject and treatment1 and that ,god the ,known and ,god the ,unknown will gain in interest by being considered in relation to its predecessors4 ,r4 ,a4 ,,streatfeild ,,god ,,the ,,known ,,and ,,god ,,the ,,unknown ,,chapter ,i4 ,,introduction ,,mankind has ever been ready to discuss matters in the inverse ratio of their importance1 so that the more closely a question is felt to touch the hearts of all of us1 the more incumbent it is considered upon prudent people to profess that it does not exist1 to frown it down1 to tell it to hold its tongue1 to maintain that it has long been finally settled1 so that there is now no question concerning it4 ,so far1 indeed1 has this been carried through all time past that the actions which are most important to us1 such as our passage through the embryonic stages1 the circulation of our blood1 our respiration1 etc4 etc41 have long been formulated beyond all power of reopening question concerning them--the mere fact or manner of their being done at all being ranked among the great discoveries of recent ages4 ,yet the analogy of past settlements would lead us to suppose that so much unanimity was not arrived at all at once1 but rather that it must have been preceded by much smouldering sic discontent1 which again was followed by open warfare2 and that even after a settlement had been ostensibly arrived at1 there was still much secret want of conviction on the part of many for several generations4 ,there are many who see nothing in this tendency of our nature but occasion for sarcasm2 those1 on the other hand1 who hold that the world is by this time old enough to be the best judge concerning the management of its own affairs will scrutinise sic this management with some closeness before they venture to satirise sic it2 nor will they do so for long without finding justification for its apparent recklessness2 for we must all fear responsibility upon matters about which we feel we know but little2 on the other hand we must all continually act1 and for the most part promptly4 ,we do so1 therefore1 with greater security when we can persuade both ourselves and others that a matter is already pigeon-holed than if we feel that we must use our own judgment for the collection1 interpretation1 and arrangement of the papers which deal with it4 ,moreover1 our action is thus made to appear as if it received collective sanction2 and by so appearing it receives it4 ,almost any settlement1 again1 is felt to be better than none1 and the more nearly a matter comes home to everyone1 the more important is it that it should be treated as a sleeping dog1 and be let to lie1 for if one person begins to open his mouth1 fatal developments may arise in the ,babel that will follow4 ,it is not difficult1 indeed1 to show that1 instead of having reason to complain of the desire for the postponement of important questions1 as though the world were composed mainly of knaves or fools1 such fixity as animal and vegetable forms possess is due to this very instinct4 ,for if there had been no reluctance1 if there were no friction and vis inertae to be encountered even after a theoretical equilibrium had been upset1 we should have had no fixed organs nor settled proclivities1 but should have been daily and hourly undergoing ,protean transformations1 and have still been throwing out pseudopodia like the amoeba4 ,true1 we might have come to like this fashion of living as well as our more steady-going system if we had taken to it many millions of ages ago when we were yet young2 but we have contracted other habits which have become so confirmed that we cannot break with them4 ,we therefore now hate that which we should perhaps have loved if we had practised sic it4 ,this1 however1 does not affect the argument1 for our concern is with our likes and dislikes1 not with the manner in which those likes and dislikes have come about4 ,the discovery that organism is capable of modification at all has occasioned so much astonishment that it has taken the most enlightened part of the world more than a hundred years to leave off expressing its contempt for such a crude1 shallow1 and preposterous conception4 ,perhaps in another hundred years we shall learn to admire the good sense1 endurance1 and thorough ,englishness of organism in having been so averse to change1 even more than its versatility in having been willing to change so much4 ,nevertheless1 however conservative we may be1 and however much alive to the folly and wickedness of tampering with settled convictions-no matter what they are-without sufficient cause1 there is yet such a constant though gradual change in our surroundings as necessitates corresponding modification in our ideas1 desires1 and actions4 ,we may think that we should like to find ourselves always in the same surroundings as our ancestors1 so that we might be guided at every touch and turn by the experience of our race1 and be saved from all self-communing or interpretation of oracular responses uttered by the facts around us4 ,yet the facts will change their utterances in spite of us2 and we1 too1 change with age and ages in spite of ourselves1 so as to see the facts around us as perhaps even more changed than they actually are4 ,it has been said1 ,tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis4 ,the passage would have been no less true if it had stood1 ,nos mutamur et tempora mutantur in nobis4 ,whether the organism or the surroundings began changing first is a matter of such small moment that the two may be left to fight it out between themselves2 but1 whichever view is taken1 the fact will remain that whenever the relations between the organism and its surroundings have been changed1 the organism must either succeed in putting the surroundings into harmony with itself1 or itself into harmony with the surroundings2 or must be made so uncomfortable as to be unable to remember itself as subjected to any such difficulties1 and therefore to die through inability to recognise sic its own identity further4 ,under these circumstances1 organism must act in one or other of these two ways3 it must either change slowly and continuously with the surroundings1 paying cash for everything1 meeting the smallest change with a corresponding modification so far as is found convenient2 or it must put off change as long as possible1 and then make larger and more sweeping changes4 ,both these courses are the same in principle1 the difference being only one of scale1 and the one being a miniature of the other1 as a ripple is an ,atlantic wave in little2 both have their advantages and disadvantages1 so that most organisms will take the one course for one set of things and the other for another4 ,they will deal promptly with things which they can get at easily1 and which lie more upon the surface2 those1 however1 which are more troublesome to reach1 and lie deeper1 will be handled upon more cataclysmic principles1 being allowed longer periods of repose followed by short periods of greater activity4 ,animals breathe and circulate their blood by a little action many times a minute2 but they feed1 some of them1 only two or three times a day1 and breed for the most part not more than once a year1 their breeding season being much their busiest time4 ,it is on the first principle that the modification of animal forms has proceeded mainly2 but it may be questioned whether what is called a sport is not the organic expression of discontent which has been long felt1 but which has not been attended to1 nor been met step by step by as much small remedial modification as was found practicable3 so that when a change does come it comes by way of revolution4 ,or1 again 7only that it comes to much the same thing71 a sport may be compared to one of those happy thoughts which sometimes come to us unbidden after we have been thinking for a long time what to do1 or how to arrange our ideas1 and have yet been unable to arrive at any conclusion4 ,so with politics1 the smaller the matter the prompter1 as a general rule1 the settlement2 on the other hand1 the more sweeping the change that is felt to be necessary1 the longer it will be deferred4 ,the advantages of dealing with the larger questions by more cataclysmic methods are obvious4 ,for1 in the first place1 all composite things must have a system1 or arrangement of parts1 so that some parts shall depend upon and be grouped round others1 as in the articulation of a skeleton and the arrangement of muscles1 nerves1 tendons1 etc41 which are attached to it4 ,to meddle with the skeleton is like taking up the street1 or the flooring of one's house2 it so upsets our arrangements that we put it off till whatever else is found wanted1 or whatever else seems likely to be wanted for a long time hence1 can be done at the same time4 ,another advantage is in the rest which is given to the attention during the long hollows1 so to speak1 of the waves between the periods of resettlement4 ,passion and prejudice have time to calm down1 and when attention is next directed to the same question1 it is a refreshed and invigorated attention-an attention1 moreover1 which may be given with the help of new lights derived from other quarters that were not luminous when the question was last considered4 ,thirdly1 it is more easy and safer to make such alterations as experience has proved to be necessary than to forecast what is going to be wanted4 ,reformers are like paymasters1 of whom there are only two bad kinds1 those who pay too soon1 and those who do not pay at all4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,common ,,ground ,i ,,have now1 perhaps1 sufficiently proved my sympathy with the reluctance felt by many to tolerate discussion upon such a subject as the existence and nature of ,god4 ,i trust that ,i may have made the reader feel that he need fear no sarcasm or levity in my treatment of the subject which ,i have chosen4 ,i will1 therefore1 proceed to sketch out a plan of what ,i hope to establish1 and this in no doubtful or unnatural sense1 but by attaching the same meanings to words as those which we usually attach to them1 and with the same certainty1 precision1 and clearness as anything else is established which is commonly called known4 ,as to what ,god is1 beyond the fact that he is the ,spirit and the ,life which creates1 governs1 and upholds all living things1 ,i can say nothing4 ,i cannot pretend that ,i can show more than others have done in what ,spirit and the ,life consists1 which governs living things and animates them4 ,i cannot show the connection between consciousness and the will1 and the organ1 much less can ,i tear away the veil from the face of ,god1 so as to show wherein will and consciousness consist4 ,no philosopher1 whether ,christian or ,rationalist1 has attempted this without discomfiture2 but ,i can1 ,i hope1 do two things3 ,firstly1 ,i can demonstrate1 perhaps more clearly than modern science is prepared to admit1 that there does exist a single ,being or ,animator of all living things--a single ,spirit1 whom we cannot think of under any meaner name than ,god2 and1 secondly1 ,i can show something more of the persona or bodily expression1 mask1 and mouthpiece of this vast ,living ,spirit than ,i know of as having been familiarly expressed elsewhere1 or as being accessible to myself or others1 though doubtless many works exist in which what ,i am going to say has been already said4 ,aware that much of this is widely accepted under the name of ,pantheism1 ,i venture to think it differs from ,pantheism with all the difference that exists between a coherent1 intelligible conception and an incoherent unintelligible one4 ,i shall therefore proceed to examine the doctrine called ,pantheism1 and to show how incomprehensible and valueless it is4 ,i will then indicate the ,living and ,personal ,god about whose existence and about many of whose attributes there is no room for question2 ,i will show that man has been so far made in the likeness of this ,person or ,god1 that ,he possesses all its essential characteristics1 and that it is this ,god who has called man and all other living forms1 whether animals or plants1 into existence1 so that our bodies are the temples of ,his spirit2 that it is this which sustains them in their life and growth1 who is one with them1 living1 moving1 and having ,his being in them2 in whom1 also1 they live and move1 they in ,him and ,he in them2 ,he being not a ,trinity in ,unity only1 but an ,infinity in ,unity1 and a ,unity in an ,infinity2 eternal in time past1 for so much time at least that our minds can come no nearer to eternity than this2 eternal for the future as long as the universe shall exist2 ever changing1 yet the same yesterday1 and to-day1 and for ever4 ,and ,i will show this with so little ambiguity that it shall be perceived not as a phantom or hallucination following upon a painful straining of the mind and a vain endeavour sic to give coherency to incoherent and inconsistent ideas1 but with the same ease1 comfort1 and palpable flesh-and-blood clearness with which we see those near to us2 whom1 though we see them at the best as through a glass darkly1 we still see face to face1 even as we are ourselves seen4 ,i will also show in what way this ,being exercises a moral government over the world1 and rewards and punishes us according to ,his own laws4 ,having done this ,i shall proceed to compare this conception of ,god with those that are currently accepted1 and will endeavour sic to show that the ideas now current are in truth efforts to grasp the one on which ,i shall here insist4 ,finally1 ,i shall persuade the reader that the differences between the so-called atheist and the so-called theist are differences rather about words than things1 inasmuch as not even the most prosaic of modern scientists will be inclined to deny the existence of this ,god1 while few theists will feel that this1 the natural conception of ,god1 is a less worthy one than that to which they have been accustomed4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,pantheism4 ,,the ,rev4 ,j4 ,h4 ,blunt1 in his ,dictionary of ,sects1 ,heresies1 etc41 defines ,pantheists as those who hold that ,god is everything1 and everything is ,god4 ,if it is granted that the value of words lies in the definiteness and coherency of the ideas that present themselves to us when the words are heard or spoken-then such a sentence as ,god is everything and everything is ,god is worthless4 ,for we have so long associated the word ,god with the idea of a ,living ,person1 who can see1 hear1 will1 feel pleasure1 displeasure1 etc41 that we cannot think of ,god1 and also of something which we have not been accustomed to think of as a ,living ,person1 at one and the same time1 so as to connect the two ideas and fuse them into a coherent thought4 ,while we are thinking of the one1 our minds involuntarily exclude the other1 and vice versa2 so that it is as impossible for us to think of anything as ,god1 or as forming part of ,god1 which we cannot also think of as a ,person1 or as a part of a ,person1 as it is to produce a hybrid between two widely distinct animals4 ,if ,i am not mistaken1 the barrenness of inconsistent ideas1 and the sterility of widely distant species or genera of plants and animals1 are one in principle-sterility of hybrids being due to barrenness of ideas1 and barrenness of ideas arising from inability to fuse unfamiliar thoughts into a coherent conception4 ,i have insisted on this at some length in ,life and ,habit1 but can do so no further here4 7,note3 ,butler returned to this subject in ,luck1 or cunning8 which was originally published in #ahhg4 ,in like manner we have so long associated the word ,person with the idea of a substantial visible body1 limited in extent1 and animated by an invisible something which we call ,spirit1 that we can think of nothing as a person which does not also bring these ideas before us4 ,any attempt to make us imagine ,god as a ,person who does not fulfil sic the conditions which our ideas attach to the word person1 is ipso facto atheistic1 as rendering the word ,god without meaning1 and therefore without reality1 and therefore non-existent to us4 ,our ideas are like our organism1 they will stand a vast amount of modification if it is effected slowly and without shock1 but the life departs out of them1 leaving the form of an idea without the power thereof1 if they are jarred too rudely4 ,any being1 then1 whom we can imagine as ,god1 must have all the qualities1 capabilities1 and also all the limitations which are implied when the word person is used4 ,but1 again1 we cannot conceive of everything as a person4 ,everything must comprehend all that is to be found on earth1 or outside of it1 and we know of no such persons as this4 ,when we say persons we intend living people with flesh and blood2 sometimes we extend our conceptions to animals and plants1 but we have not hitherto done so as generally as ,i hope we shall some day come to do4 ,below animals and plants we have never in any seriousness gone4 ,all that we have been able to regard as personal has had what we can call a living body1 even though that body is vegetable only2 and this body has been tangible1 and has been comprised within certain definite limits1 or within limits which have at any rate struck the eye as definite4 ,and every part within these limits has been animated by an unseen something which we call soul or spirit4 ,a person must be a persona--that is to say1 the living mask and mouthpiece of an energy saturating it1 and speaking through it4 ,it must be animate in all its parts4 ,but everything is not animate4 ,animals and plants alone produce in us those ideas which can make reasonable people call them persons with consistency of intention4 ,we can conceive of each animal and of each plant as a person2 we can conceive again of a compound person like the coral polypes sic1 or like a tree which is composed of a congeries of subordinate persons1 inasmuch as each bud is a separate and individual plant4 ,we can go farther than this1 and1 as ,i shall hope to show1 we ought to do so2 that is to say1 we shall find it easier and more agreeable with our other ideas to go farther than not2 for we should see all animal and vegetable life as united by a subtle and till lately invisible ramification1 so that all living things are one tree-like growth1 forming a single person4 ,but we cannot conceive of oceans1 continents1 and air as forming parts of a person at all2 much less can we think of them as forming one person with the living forms that inhabit them4 ,to ask this of us is like asking us to see the bowl and the water in which three gold-fish are swimming as part of the gold-fish4 ,we cannot do it any more than we can do something physically impossible4 ,we can see the gold-fish as forming one family1 and therefore as in a way united to the personality of the parents from which they sprang1 and therefore as members one of another1 and therefore as forming a single growth of gold-fish1 as boughs and buds unite to form a tree2 but we cannot by any effort of the imagination introduce the bowl and the water into the personality1 for we have never been accustomed to think of such things as living and personal4 ,those1 therefore1 who tell us that ,god is everything1 and everything is ,god1 require us to see everything as a person1 which we cannot2 or ,god as not a person1 which again we cannot4 ,continuing the article of ,mr4 ,blunt from which ,i have already quoted1 ,i read3-- ,linus1 in a passage which has been preserved by ,stobaeus1 exactly expresses the notion afterwards adopted by ,spinoza3 ',one sole energy governs all things2 all things are unity1 and each portion is ,all2 for of one integer all things were born2 in the end of time all things shall again become unity2 the unity of multiplicity4' ,orpheus1 his disciple1 taught no other doctrine4 ,according to ,pythagoras1 an adept in the ,orphic philosophy1 the soul of the world is the ,divine energy which interpenetrates every portion of the mass1 and the soul of man is an efflux of that energy4 ,the world1 too1 is an exact impress of the ,eternal ,idea1 which is the mind of ,god4 ,john ,scotus ,erigena taught that all is ,god and ,god is all4 ,william of ,champeaux1 again1 two hundred years later1 maintained that all individuality is one in substance1 and varies only in its non-essential accidents and transient properties4 ,amalric of ,bena and ,david of ,dinant followed the theory out into a thoroughgoing ,pantheism4 ,amalric held that ,all is ,god and ,god is all4 ,the ,creator and the creature are one ,being4 ,ideas are at once creative and created1 subjective and objective4 ,god is the end of all1 and all return to ,him4 ,as every variety of humanity forms one manhood1 so the world contains individual forms of one eternal essence4 ,david of ,dinant only varied upon this by imagining a corporeal unity4 ,although body1 soul1 and eternal substance are three1 these three are one and the same being4 ,giordano ,bruno maintained the world of sense to be a vast animal having the ,deity for its living soul4 ,the inanimate part of the world is thus excluded from participation in the ,deity1 and a conception that our minds can embrace is offered us instead of one which they cannot entertain1 except as in a dream1 incoherently4 ,but without such a view of evolution as was prevalent at the beginning of this century1 it was impossible to see the world of sense intelligently1 as forming a vast animal4 ,unless1 therefore1 ,giordano ,bruno held the opinions of ,buffon1 ,dr4 ,erasmus ,darwin1 and ,lamarck1 with more definiteness than ,i am yet aware of his having done1 his contention must be considered as a splendid prophecy1 but as little more than a prophecy4 ,he continues1 ,birth is expansion from the one centre of ,life2 life is its continuance1 and death is the necessary return of the ray to the centre of light4 ,this begins finely1 but ends mystically4 ,i have not1 however1 compared the ,english translation with the original1 and must reserve a fuller examination of ,giordano ,bruno's teaching for another opportunity4 ,spinoza disbelieved in the world rather than in ,god4 ,he was an ,acosmist1 to use ,jacobi's expression1 rather than an ,atheist4 ,according to him1 the ,deity and the ,universe are but one substance1 at the same time both spirit and matter1 thought and extension1 which are the only known attributes of the ,deity4 ,my readers will1 ,i think1 agree with me that there is very little of the above which conveys ideas with the fluency and comfort which accompany good words4 ,words are like servants3 it is not enough that we should have them-we must have the most able and willing that we can find1 and at the smallest wages that will content them4 ,having got them we must make the best and not the worst of them4 ,surely1 in the greater part of what has been quoted above1 the words are barren letters only3 they do not quicken within us and enable us to conceive a thought1 such as we can in our turn impress upon dead matter1 and mould sic that matter into another shape than its own1 through the thought which has become alive within us4 ,no offspring of ideas has followed upon them1 or1 if any at all1 yet in such unwonted shape1 and with such want of alacrity1 that we loathe them as malformations and miscarriages of our minds4 ,granted that if we examine them closely we shall at length find them to embody a little germ of truth-that is to say1 of coherency with our other ideas2 but there is too little truth in proportion to the trouble necessary to get at it4 ,we can get more truth1 that is to say1 more coherency-for truth and coherency are one-for less trouble in other ways4 ,but it may be urged that the beginnings of all tasks are difficult and unremunerative1 and that later developments of ,pantheism may be more intelligible than the earlier ones4 ,unfortunately1 this is not the case4 ,on continuing ,mr4 ,blunt's article1 ,i find the later ,pantheists a hundredfold more perplexing than the earlier ones4 ,with ,kant1 ,schelling1 ,fichte1 and ,hegel1 we feel that we are with men who have been decoyed into a hopeless quagmire2 we understand nothing of their language-we doubt whether they understand themselves1 and feel that we can do nothing with them but look at them and pass them by4 ,in my next chapter ,i propose to show the end which the early ,pantheists were striving after1 and the reason and naturalness of their error4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,pantheism4 ,the earlier ,pantheists were misled by the endeavour sic to lay hold of two distinct ideas1 the one of which was a reality that has since been grasped and is of inestimable value1 the other a phantom which has misled all who have followed it4 ,the reality is the unity of ,life1 the oneness of the guiding and animating spirit which quickens animals and plants1 so that they are all the outcome and expression of a common mind1 and are in truth one animal2 the phantom is the endeavour sic to find the origin of things1 to reach the fountain-head of all energy1 and thus to lay the foundations on which a philosophy may be constructed which none can accuse of being baseless1 or of arguing in a circle4 ,in following as through a thick wood after the phantom our forefathers from time to time caught glimpses of the reality1 which seemed so wonderful as it eluded them1 and flitted back again into the thickets1 that they declared it must be the phantom they were in search of1 which was thus evidenced as actually existing4 ,whereon1 instead of mastering such of the facts they met with as could be captured easily-which facts would have betrayed the hiding-places of others1 and these again of others1 and so ad infinitum-they overlooked what was within their reach1 and followed hotly through brier and brake after an imaginary greater prize4 ,great thoughts are not to be caught in this way4 ,they must present themselves for capture of their own free will1 or be taken after a little coyness only4 ,they are like wealth and power1 which1 if a man is not born to them1 are the more likely to take him1 the more he has restrained himself from an attempt to snatch them4 ,they hanker after those only who have tamed their nearer thoughts4 ,nevertheless1 it is impossible not to feel that the early ,pantheists were true prophets and seers1 though the things were unknown to them without which a complete view was unattainable4 ,what does ,linus mean1 we ask ourselves1 when he says3--,one sole energy governs all things8 ,how can one sole energy govern1 we will say1 the reader and the chair on which he sits8 ,what is meant by an energy governing a chair8 ,if by an effort we have made ourselves believe we understand something which can be better expressed by these words than by any others1 no sooner do we turn our backs than the ideas so painfully collected fly apart again4 ,no matter how often we go in search of them1 and force them into juxtaposition1 they prove to have none of that innate coherent power with which ideas combine that we can hold as true and profitable4 ,yet if ,linus had confined his statement to living things1 and had said that one sole energy governed all plants and animals1 he would have come near both to being intelligible and true4 ,for if1 as we now believe1 all animals and plants are descended from a single cell1 they must be considered as cousins to one another1 and as forming a single tree-like animal1 every individual plant or animal of which is as truly one and the same person with the primordial cell as the oak a thousand years old is one and the same plant with the acorn out of which it has grown4 ,this is easily understood1 but will1 ,i trust1 be made to appear simpler presently4 ,when ,linus says1 ,all things are unity1 and each portion is ,all2 for of one integer all things were born1 it is impossible for plain people-who do not wish to use words unless they mean the same things by them as both they and others have been in the habit of meaning-to understand what is intended4 ,how can each portion be all8 ,how can one ,londoner be all ,london8 ,i know that this1 too1 can in a way be shown1 but the resulting idea is too far to fetch1 and when fetched does not fit in well enough with our other ideas to give it practical and commercial value4 ,how1 again1 can all things be said to be born of one integer1 unless the statement is confined to living things1 which can alone be born at all1 and unless a theory of evolution is intended1 such as ,linus would hardly have accepted8 ,yet limit the all things to all living things1 grant the theory of evolution1 and explain each portion is ,all to mean that all life is akin1 and possesses the same essential fundamental characteristics1 and it is surprising how nearly ,linus approaches both to truth and intelligibility4 ,it may be said that the animate and the inanimate have the same fundamental substance1 so that a chair might rot and be absorbed by grass1 which grass might be eaten by a cow1 which cow might be eaten by a man2 and by similar processes the man might become a chair2 but these facts are not presented to the mind by saying that one energy governs all things-a chair1 we will say1 and a man2 we could only say that one energy governed a man and a chair1 if the chair were a reasonable living person1 who was actively and consciously engaged in helping the man to attain a certain end1 unless1 that is to say1 we are to depart from all usual interpretation of words1 in which case we invalidate the advantages of language and all the sanctions of morality4 ,all things shall again become unity is intelligible as meaning that all things probably have come from a single elementary substance1 say hydrogen or what not1 and that they will return to it2 but the explanation of unity as being the unity of multiplicity puzzles2 if there is any meaning it is too recondite to be of service to us4 ,what1 again1 is meant by saying that the soul of the world is the ,divine energy which interpenetrates every portion of the mass8 ,the soul of the world is an expression which1 to myself1 and1 ,i should imagine1 to most people1 is without propriety4 ,we cannot think of the world except as earth1 air1 and water1 in this or that state1 on and in which there grow plants and animals4 ,what is meant by saying that earth has a soul1 and lives8 ,does it move from place to place erratically8 ,does it feed8 ,does it reproduce itself8 ,does it make such noises1 or commit such vagaries as shall make us say that it feels8 ,can it achieve its ends1 and fail of achieving them through mistake8 ,if it cannot1 how has it a soul more than a dead man has a soul1 out of whom we say that the soul has departed1 and whose body we conceive of as returning to dead earth1 inasmuch as it is now soulless8 ,is there any unnatural violence which can be done to our thoughts by which we can bring the ideas of a soul and of water1 or of a stone into combination1 and keep them there for long together8 ,the ancients1 indeed1 said they believed their rivers to be gods1 and carved likenesses of them under the forms of men2 but even supposing this to have been their real mind1 can it by any conceivable means become our own8 ,granted that a stone is kept from falling to dust by an energy which compels its particles to cohere1 which energy can be taken out of it and converted into some other form of energy2 granted 7which may or may not be true7 also1 that the life of a living body is only the energy which keeps the particles which compose it in a certain disposition2 and granted that the energy of the stone may be convertible into the energy of a living form1 and that thus1 after a long journey a tired idea may lag after the sound of such words as the soul of the world4 ,granted all the above1 nevertheless to speak of the world as having a soul is not sufficiently in harmony with our common notions1 nor does it go sufficiently with the grain of our thoughts to render the expression a meaning one1 or one that can be now used with any propriety or fitness1 except by those who do not know their own meaninglessness4 ,vigorous minds will harbour sic vigorous thoughts only1 or such as bid fair to become so2 and vigorous thoughts are always simple1 definite1 and in harmony with everyday ideas4 ,we can imagine a soul as living in the lowest slime that moves1 feeds1 reproduces itself1 remembers1 and dies4 ,the amoeba wants things1 knows it wants them1 alters itself so as to try and alter them1 thus preparing for an intended modification of outside matter by a preliminary modification of itself4 ,it thrives if the modification from within is followed by the desired modification in the external object2 it knows that it is well1 and breeds more freely in consequence4 ,if it cannot get hold of outside matter1 or cannot proselytise sic that matter and persuade it to see things through its own 7the amoeba's7 spectacles-if it cannot convert that matter1 if the matter persists in disagreeing with it-its spirits droop1 its soul is disquieted within it1 it becomes listless like a withering flower-it languishes and dies4 ,we cannot imagine a thing to live at all and yet be soulless except in sleep for a short time1 and even so not quite soulless4 ,the idea of a soul1 or of that unknown something for which the word soul is our hieroglyphic1 and the idea of living organism1 unite so spontaneously1 and stick together so inseparably1 that no matter how often we sunder them they will elude our vigilance and come together1 like true lovers1 in spite of us4 ,let us not attempt to divorce ideas that have so long been wedded together4 ,i submit1 then1 that ,pantheism1 even as explained by those who had entered on the outskirts only of its great morass1 nevertheless holds out so little hope of leading to any comfortable conclusion that it will be more reasonable to occupy our minds with other matter than to follow ,pantheism further4 ,the ,pantheists speak of a person without meaning a person2 they speak of a him and a he without having in their minds the idea of a living person with all its inevitable limitations4 ,pantheism is1 therefore1 as is said by ,mr4 ,blunt in another article1 practically nothing else than ,atheism2 it has no belief in a personal deity overruling the affairs of the world1 as ,divine ,providence1 and is1 therefore1 ,atheistic1 and again1 ,theism believes in a spirit superior to matter1 and so does ,pantheism2 but the spirit of ,theism is self-conscious1 and therefore personal and of individual existence-a nature per se1 and upholding all things by an active control2 while ,pantheism believes in spirit that is of a higher nature than brute matter1 but is a mere unconscious principle of life1 impersonal1 irrational as the brute matter that it quickens4 ,if this verdict concerning ,pantheism is true--and from all ,i can gather it is as nearly true as anything can be said to be which is predicated of an incoherent idea--the ,pantheistic ,god is an attempt to lay hold of a truth which has nevertheless eluded its pursuers4 ,in my next chapter ,i will consider the commonly received1 orthodox conception of ,god1 and compare it with the ,pantheistic4 ,i will show that it1 too1 is ,atheistic1 inasmuch as1 in spite of its professing to give us a conception of ,god1 it raises no ideas in our minds of a person or ,living ,being--and a ,god who is not this is non-existent4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,orthodox ,,theism ,we have seen that ,pantheism fails to satisfy1 inasmuch as it requires us to mean something different by the word ,god from what we have been in the habit of meaning4 ,i have already said-,i fear1 too often-that no conception of ,god can have any value or meaning for us which does not involve his existence as an independent ,living ,person of ineffable wisdom and power1 vastness1 and duration both in the past and for the future4 ,if such a ,being as this can be found existing and made evident1 directly or indirectly1 to human senses1 there is a ,god4 ,if otherwise1 there is no ,god1 or none1 at any rate1 so far as we can know1 none with whom we need concern ourselves4 ,no conscious personality1 no ,god4 ,an impersonal ,god is as much a contradiction in terms as an impersonal person4 ,unfortunately1 when we question orthodox theology closely1 we find that it supposes ,god to be a person who has no material body such as could come within the range of any human sense1 and make an impression upon it4 ,he is supposed to be of a spiritual nature only1 except in so far as one part of his triune personality is1 according to the ,athanasian ,creed1 perfect man1 of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting4 ,here1 then1 we find ourselves in a dilemma4 ,on the one hand1 we are involved in the same difficulty as in the case of ,pantheism1 inasmuch as a person without flesh and blood1 or something analogous1 is not a person2 we are required1 therefore1 to believe in a personal ,god1 who has no true person2 to believe1 that is to say1 in an impersonal person4 ,this1 as we have seen already1 is ,atheism under another name1 being1 as it is1 destructive of all idea of ,god whatever2 for these words do not convey an idea of something which human intelligence can understand up to a certain point1 and which it can watch going out of sight into regions beyond our view1 but in the same direction-as we may infer other stars in space beyond the farthest that we know of2 they convey utterly self-destructive ideas1 which can have no real meaning1 and can only be thought to have a meaning by ignorant and uncultivated people4 ,otherwise such foundation as human reason rests upon-that is to say1 the current opinion of those whom the world appraises as reasonable and agreeable1 or capable of being agreed with for any time-is sapped2 the whole thing tumbles down1 and we may have square circles and round triangles1 which may be declared to be no longer absurdities and contradictions in terms1 but mysteries that go beyond our reason1 without being contrary to it4 ,few will maintain this1 and those few may be neglected2 an impersonal person must therefore be admitted to be nonsense1 and an immaterial ,god to be ,atheism in another shape4 ,on the other hand1 if ,god is of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting1 and if he thus has the body without which he is-as far as we are concerned-non-existent1 this body must yet be reasonably like other bodies1 and must exist in some place and at some time4 ,furthermore1 it must do sufficiently nearly what all other human flesh belonging to perfect man must do1 or cease to be human flesh4 ,our ideas are like our organisms2 they have some little elasticity and circumstance-suiting power1 some little margin on which1 as ,i have elsewhere said1 side-notes may be written1 and glosses on the original text2 but this power is very limited4 ,as offspring will only1 as a general rule1 vary very little from its immediate parents1 and as it will fail either immediately or in the second generation if the parents differ too widely from one another1 so we cannot get our idea of-we will say a horse-to conjure up to our minds the idea of any animal more unlike a horse than a pony is2 nor can we get a well-defined idea of a combination between a horse and any animal more remote from it than an ass1 zebra1 or giraffe4 ,we may1 indeed1 make a statue of a flying horse1 but the idea is one which cannot be made plausible to any but ignorant people4 ,so human flesh may vary a little from human flesh without undue violence being done to our reason and to the right use of language1 but it cannot differ from it so much as not to eat1 drink1 nor waste and repair itself4 ,human flesh1 which is without these necessary adjuncts1 is human flesh only to those who can believe in flying horses with feathered wings and bills like birds-that is to say1 to vulgar and superstitious persons4 ,lastly1 not only must the perfect man1 who is the second person of the ,godhead according to the orthodox faith1 and who subsists of human flesh as well as of a reasonable soul1 not only must this person exist1 but he must exist in some place either on this earth or outside it4 ,if he exists on earth1 he must be in ,europe1 ,asia1 ,africa1 ,america1 or on some island1 and if he were met with he must be capable of being seen and handled in the same way as all other things that can be called perfect man are seen2 otherwise he is a perfect man who is not only not a perfect man1 but who does not in any considerable degree resemble one4 ,it is not1 however1 pretended by anyone that ,god1 the perfect man1 is to be looked for in any place upon the surface of the globe4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the person of ,god exists in some sphere outside the earth1 his human flesh again proves to be of an entirely different kind from all other human flesh1 for we know that such flesh cannot exist except on earth2 if in space unsupported1 it must fall to the ground1 or into some other planet1 or into a sun1 or go on revolving round the earth or some other heavenly body-or not be personal4 ,none of those whose opinions will carry weight will assign a position either in some country on this earth1 or yet again in space1 to ,jesus ,christ1 but this involves the rendering meaningless of all expressions which involve his personality4 ,the ,christian conception1 therefore1 of the ,deity proves when examined with any desire to understand our own meaning 7and what lawlessness so great as the attempt to impose words upon our understandings which have no lawful settlement within them87 to be no less a contradiction in terms than the ,pantheistic conception4 ,it is ,atheistic1 as offering us a ,god which is not a ,god1 inasmuch as we can conceive of no such being1 nor of anything in the least like it4 ,it is1 like ,pantheism1 an illusion1 which can be believed only by those who repeat a formula which they have learnt by heart in a foreign language of which they understand nothing1 and yet aver that they believe it4 ,there are doubtless many who will say that this is possible1 but the majority of my readers will hold that no proposition can be believed or disbelieved until its nature is understood4 ,it may perhaps be said that there is another conception of ,god possible1 and that we may see him as personal1 without at the same time believing that he has any actual tangible existence4 ,thus we personify hope1 truth1 and justice1 without intending to convey to anyone the impression that these qualities are women1 with flesh and blood4 ,again1 we do not think of ,nature as an actual woman1 though we call her one2 why may we not conceive of ,god1 then1 as an expression whereby we personify1 by a figure of speech only2 the thing that is intended being no person1 but our own highest ideal of power1 wisdom1 and duration4 ,there would be no reason to complain of this if this manner of using the word ,god were well understood4 ,many words have two meanings1 or even three1 without any mischievous confusion of thought following4 ,there can not only be no objection to the use of the word ,god as a manner of expressing the highest ideal of which our minds can conceive1 but on the contrary no better expression can be found1 and it is a pity the word is not thus more generally used4 ,few1 however1 would be content with any such limitation of ,god as that he should be an idea only1 an expression for certain qualities of human thought and action4 ,whence1 it may be fairly asked1 did our deeply rooted belief in ,god as a ,living ,person originate8 ,the idea of him as of an inconceivably vast1 ancient1 powerful1 loving1 and yet formidable ,person is one which survives all changes of detail in men's opinion4 ,i believe there are a few very savage tribes who are as absolutely without religious sense as the beasts of the field1 but the vast majority for a long time past have been possessed with an idea that there is somewhere a ,living ,god who is the ,spirit and the ,life of all that is1 and who is a true ,person with an individuality and self-consciousness of his own4 ,it is only natural that we should be asked how such an idea has remained in the minds of so many--who differ upon almost every other part of their philosophy-for so long a time if it was without foundation1 and a piece of dreamy mysticism only4 ,true1 it has generally been declared that this ,god is an infinite ,god1 and an infinite ,god is a ,god without any bounds or limitations2 and a ,god without bounds or limitations is an impersonal ,god2 and an impersonal ,god is ,atheism4 ,but may not this be the incoherency of prophecy which precedes the successful mastering of an idea8 ,may we not think of this illusory expression as having arisen from inability to see the whereabouts of a certain vast but tangible ,person as to whose existence men were nevertheless clear8 ,if they felt that it existed1 and yet could not say where1 nor wherein it was to be laid hands on1 they would be very likely to get out of the difficulty by saying that it existed as an infinite ,spirit1 partly from a desire to magnify what they felt must be so vast and powerful1 and partly because they had as yet only a vague conception of what they were aiming at1 and must1 therefore1 best express it vaguely4 ,we must not be surprised that when an idea is still inchoate its expression should be inconsistent and imperfect-ideas will almost always during the earlier history of a thought be put together experimentally so as to see whether or no they will cohere4 ,partly out of indolence1 partly out of the desire of those who brought the ideas together to be declared right1 and partly out of joy that the truth should be supposed found1 incoherent ideas will be kept together longer than they should be2 nevertheless they will in the end detach themselves and go1 if others present themselves which fit into their place better4 ,there is no consistency which has not once been inconsistent1 nor coherency that has not been incoherent4 ,the incoherency of our ideas concerning ,god is due to the fact that we have not yet truly found him1 but it does not argue that he does not exist and cannot be found anywhere after more diligent search2 on the contrary1 the persistence of the main idea1 in spite of the incoherency of its details1 points strongly in the direction of believing that it rests upon a foundation in fact4 ,but it must be remembered there can be no ,god who is not personal and material3 and if personal1 then1 though inconceivably vast in comparison with man1 still limited in space and time1 and capable of making mistakes concerning his own interests1 though as a general rule right in his estimates concerning them4 ,where1 then1 is this ,being8 ,he must be on earth1 or what folly can be greater than speaking of him as a person8 ,what are persons on any other earth to us1 or we to them8 ,he must have existed and be going to exist through all time1 and he must have a tangible body4 ,where1 then1 is the body of this ,god8 ,and what is the mystery of his ,incarnation8 ,it will be my business to show this in the following chapter4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,tree ,,of ,,life ,atheism denies knowledge of a ,god of any kind4 ,pantheism and ,theism alike profess to give us a ,god1 but they alike fail to perform what they have promised4 ,we can know nothing of the ,god they offer us1 for not even do they themselves profess that any of our senses can be cognisant sic of him4 ,they tell us that he is a personal ,god1 but that he has no material person4 ,this is disguised ,atheism4 ,what we want is a ,personal ,god1 the glory of whose ,presence can be made in part evident to our senses1 though what we can realise sic is less than nothing in comparison with what we must leave for ever unimagined4 ,and truly such a ,god is not far from every one of us2 for if we survey the broader and deeper currents of men's thoughts during the last three thousand years1 we may observe two great and steady sets as having carried away with them the more eligible races of mankind4 ,the one is a tendency from ,polytheism to ,monotheism2 the other from ,polytypism to ,monotypism of the earliest forms of life-all animal and vegetable forms having at length come to be regarded as differentiations of a single substance-to wit1 protoplasm4 ,no man does well so to kick against the pricks as to set himself against tendencies of such depth1 strength1 and permanence as this4 ,if he is to be in harmony with the dominant opinion of his own and of many past ages1 he will see a single ,god-impregnate substance as having been the parent from which all living forms have sprung4 ,one spirit1 and one form capable of such modification as its directing spirit shall think fit2 one soul and one body1 one ,god and one ,life4 ,for the time has come when the two unities so painfully arrived at must be joined together as body and soul1 and be seen not as two1 but one4 ,there is no living organism untenanted by the ,spirit of ,god1 nor any ,spirit of ,god perceivable by man apart from organism embodying and expressing it4 ,god and the ,life of the ,world are like a mountain1 which will present different aspects as we look at it from different sides1 but which1 when we have gone all round it1 proves to be one only4 ,god is the animal and vegetable world1 and the animal and vegetable world is ,god4 ,i have repeatedly said that we ought to see all animal and vegetable life as uniting to form a single personality4 ,i should perhaps explain this more fully1 for the idea of a compound person is one which at first is not very easy to grasp1 inasmuch as we are not conscious of any but our more superficial aspects1 and have therefore until lately failed to understand that we are ourselves compound persons4 ,i may perhaps be allowed to quote from an earlier work4 ,each cell in the human body is now admitted by physiologists to be a person with an intelligent soul1 differing from our own more complex soul in degree and not in kind1 and1 like ourselves1 being born1 living1 and dying4 ,it would appear1 then1 as though 'we1' 'our souls1' or 'selves1' or 'personalities1' or by whatever name we may prefer to be called1 are but the consensus and full-flowing stream of countless sensations and impulses on the part of our tributary souls or 'selves1' who probably no more know that we exist1 and that they exist as a part of us1 than a microscopic insect knows the results of spectrum analysis1 or than an agricultural labourer sic knows the working of the ,british ,constitution2 and of whom we know no more than we do of the habits and feelings of some class widely separated from our own4-7,life and ,habit1 p4 #aaj47 ,after which it became natural to ask the following question3--,is it possible to avoid imagining that we may be ourselves atoms1 undesignedly combining to form some vaster being1 though we are utterly incapable of perceiving this being as a single individual1 or of realising sic the scheme and scope of our own combination8 ,and this1 too1 not a spiritual being1 which1 without matter or what we think matter of some sort1 is as complete nonsense to us as though men bade us love and lean upon an intelligent vacuum1 but a being with what is virtually flesh and blood and bones1 with organs1 senses1 dimensions in some way analogous to our own1 into some other part of which being at the time of our great change we must infallibly re-enter1 starting clean anew1 with bygones bygones1 and no more ache for ever from age or antecedents4 ',an organic being1' writes ,mr4 ,darwin1 'is a microcosm1 a little universe1 formed of a host of self-propagating organisms inconceivably minute and numerous as the stars in ,heaven4' ,as these myriads of smaller organisms are parts and processes of us1 so are we parts and processes of life at large4 ,a tree is composed of a multitude of subordinate trees1 each bud being a distinct individual4 ,so coral polypes sic form a tree-like growth of animal life1 with branches from which spring individual polypes sic that are connected by a common tissue and supported by a common skeleton4 ,we have no difficulty in seeing a unity in multitude1 and a multitude in unity here1 because we can observe the wood and the gelatinous tissue connecting together all the individuals which compose either the tree or the mass of polypes sic4 ,yet the skeleton1 whether of tree or of polype sic1 is inanimate2 and the tissue1 whether of bark or gelatine sic1 is only the matted roots of the individual buds2 so that the outward and striking connection between the individuals is more delusive than real4 ,the true connection is one which cannot be seen1 and consists in the animation of each bud by a like spirit-in the community of soul1 in the voice of the ,lord which maketh men to be of one mind in an house-to dwell together in unity-to take what are practically identical views of things1 and express themselves in concert under all circumstances4 ,provided this-the true unifier of organism-can be shown to exist1 the absence of gross outward and visible but inanimate common skeleton is no bar to oneness of personality4 ,let us picture to our minds a tree of which all the woody fibre sic shall be invisible1 the buds and leaves seeming to stand in mid-air unsupported and unconnected with one another1 so that there is nothing but a certain tree-like collocation of foliage to suggest any common principle of growth uniting the leaves4 ,three or four leaves of different ages stand living together at the place in the air where the end of each bough should be2 of these the youngest are still tender and in the bud1 while the older ones are turning yellow and on the point of falling4 ,between these leaves a sort of twig-like growth can be detected if they are looked at in certain lights1 but it is hard to see1 except perhaps when a bud is on the point of coming out4 ,then there does appear to be a connection which might be called branch-like4 ,the separate tufts are very different from one another1 so that oak leaves1 ash leaves1 horse-chestnut leaves1 etc41 are each represented1 but there is one species only at the end of each bough4 ,though the trunk and all the inner boughs and leaves have disappeared1 yet there hang here and there fossil leaves1 also in mid-air2 they appear to have been petrified1 without method or selection1 by what we call the caprices of nature2 they hang in the path which the boughs and twigs would have taken1 and they seem to indicate that if the tree could have been seen a million years earlier1 before it had grown near its present size1 the leaves standing at the end of each bough would have been found very different from what they are now4 ,let us suppose that all the leaves at the end of all the invisible boughs1 no matter how different they now are from one another1 were found in earliest budhood to be absolutely indistinguishable1 and afterwards to develop towards each differentiation through stages which were indicated by the fossil leaves4 ,lastly1 let us suppose that though the boughs which seem wanted to connect all the living forms of leaves with the fossil leaves1 and with countless forms of which all trace has disappeared1 and also with a single root-have become invisible1 yet that there is irrefragable evidence to show that they once actually existed1 and indeed are existing at this moment1 in a condition as real though as invisible to the eye as air or electricity4 ,should we1 ,i ask1 under these circumstances hesitate to call our imaginary plant or tree by a single name1 and to think of it as one person1 merely upon the score that the woody fibre sic was invisible8 ,should we not esteem the common soul1 memories and principles of growth which are preserved between all the buds1 no matter how widely they differ in detail1 as a more living bond of union than a framework of wood would be1 which1 though it were visible to the eye1 would still be inanimate8 ,the mistletoe appears as closely connected with the tree on which it grows as any of the buds of the tree itself2 it is fed upon the same sap as the other buds are1 which sap-however much it may modify it at the last moment-it draws through the same fibres sic as do its foster-brothers-why then do we at once feel that the mistletoe is no part of the apple tree8 ,not from any want of manifest continuity1 but from the spiritual difference-from the profoundly different views of life and things which are taken by the parasite and the tree on which it grows-the two are now different because they think differently-as long as they thought alike they were alike-that is to say they were protoplasm-they and we and all that lives meeting in this common substance4 ,we ought therefore to regard our supposed tufts of leaves as a tree1 that is to say1 as a compound existence1 each one of whose component items is compounded of others which are also in their turn compounded4 ,but the tree above described is no imaginary parallel to the condition of life upon the globe2 it is perhaps as accurate a description of the ,tree of ,life as can be put into so small a compass4 ,the most sure proof of a man's identity is the power to remember that such and such things happened1 which none but he can know2 the most sure proof of his remembering is the power to react his part in the original drama1 whatever it may have been2 if a man can repeat a performance with consummate truth1 and can stand any amount of cross-questioning about it1 he is the performer of the original performance1 whatever it was4 ,the memories which all living forms prove by their actions that they possess-the memories of their common identity with a single person in whom they meet-this is incontestable proof of their being animated by a common soul4 ,it is certain1 therefore1 that all living forms1 whether animal or vegetable1 are in reality one animal2 we and the mosses being part of the same vast person in no figurative sense1 but with as much bona fide literal truth as when we say that a man's finger-nails and his eyes are parts of the same man4 ,it is in this ,person that we may see the ,body of ,god-and in the evolution of this ,person1 the mystery of ,his ,incarnation4 ,in ,unconscious ,memory1 ,chapter ,v1 ,butler wrote3 ,in the articles above alluded to 7,god the ,known and ,god the ,unknown7 ,i separated the organic from the inorganic1 but when ,i came to rewrite them ,i found that this could not be done1 and that ,i must reconstruct what ,i had written4 ,this reconstruction never having been effected1 it may be well to quote further from ,unconscious ,memory 7concluding chapter73 ,at parting1 therefore1 ,i would recommend the reader to see every atom in the universe as living and able to feel and remember1 but in a humble way4 ,he must have life eternal as well as matter eternal2 and the life and the matter must be joined together inseparably as body and soul to one another4 ,thus he will see ,god everywhere1 not as those who repeat phrases conventionally1 but as people who would have their words taken according to their most natural and legitimate meaning2 and he will feel that the main difference between him and many of those who oppose him lies in the fact that whereas both he and they use the same language1 his opponents only half mean what they say1 while he means it entirely444 ,we shall endeavour sic to see the so-called inorganic as living1 in respect of the qualities it has in common with the organic1 rather than the organic as non-living in respect of the qualities it has in common with the inorganic4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,likeness ,,of ,,god ,in my last chapter ,i endeavoured sic to show that each living being1 whether animal or plant1 throughout the world is a component item of a single personality1 in the same way as each individual citizen of a community is a member of one state1 or as each cell of our own bodies is a separate person1 or each bud of a tree a separate plant4 ,we must therefore see the whole varied congeries of living things as a single very ancient ,being1 of inconceivable vastness1 and animated by one ,spirit4 ,we call the octogenarian one person with the embryo of a few days old from which he has developed4 ,an oak or yew tree may be two thousand years old1 but we call it one plant with the seed from which it has grown4 ,millions of individual buds have come and gone1 to the yearly wasting and repairing of its substance2 but the tree still lives and thrives1 and the dead leaves have life therein4 ,so the ,tree of ,life still lives and thrives as a single person1 no matter how many new features it has acquired during its development1 nor1 again1 how many of its individual leaves fall yellow to the ground daily4 ,the spirit or soul of this person is the ,spirit of ,god1 and its body-for we know of no soul or spirit without a body1 nor of any living body without a spirit or soul1 and if there is a ,god at all there must be a body of ,god-is the many-membered outgrowth of protoplasm1 the ensemble of animal and vegetable life4 ,to repeat4 ,the ,theologian of to-day tells us that there is a ,god1 but is horrified at the idea of that ,god having a body4 ,we say that we believe in ,god1 but that our minds refuse to realise sic an intelligent ,being who has no bodily person4 ,where then1 says the ,theologian1 is the body of your ,god8 ,we have answered1 ,in the living forms upon the earth1 which1 though they look many1 are1 when we regard them by the light of their history and of true analogies1 one person only4 ,the spiritual connection between them is a more real bond of union than the visible discontinuity of material parts is ground for separating them in our thoughts4 ,let the reader look at a case of moths in the shop-window of a naturalist1 and note the unspeakable delicacy1 beauty1 and yet serviceableness of their wings2 or let him look at a case of humming-birds1 and remember how infinitely small a part of ,nature is the whole group of the animals he may be considering1 and how infinitely small a part of that group is the case that he is looking at4 ,let him bear in mind that he is looking on the dead husks only of what was inconceivably more marvellous sic when the moths or humming-birds were alive4 ,let him think of the vastness of the earth1 and of the activity by day and night through countless ages of such countless forms of animal and vegetable life as that no human mind can form the faintest approach to anything that can be called a conception of their multitude1 and let him remember that all these forms have touched and touched and touched other living beings till they meet back on a common substance in which they are rooted1 and from which they all branch forth so as to be one animal4 ,will he not in this real and tangible existence find a ,god who is as much more worthy of admiration than the ,god of the ordinary ,theologian-as ,he is also more easy of comprehension8 ,for the ,theologian dreams of a ,god sitting above the clouds among the cherubim1 who blow their loud uplifted angel trumpets before ,him1 and humour sic ,him as though ,he were some despot in an ,oriental tale2 but we enthrone ,him upon the wings of birds1 on the petals of flowers1 on the faces of our friends1 and upon whatever we most delight in of all that lives upon the earth4 ,we then can not only love ,him1 but we can do that without which love has neither power nor sweetness1 but is a phantom only1 an impersonal person1 a vain stretching forth of arms towards something that can never fill them-we can express our love and have it expressed to us in return4 ,and this not in the uprearing of stone temples-for the ,lord dwelleth sic in temples made with other organs than hands-nor yet in the cleansing of our hearts1 but in the caress bestowed upon horse and dog1 and kisses upon the lips of those we love4 ,wide1 however1 as is the difference between the orthodox ,theologian and ourselves1 it is not more remarkable than the number of the points on which we can agree with him1 and on which1 moreover1 we can make his meaning clearer to himself than it can have ever hitherto been4 ,he1 for example1 says that man has been made in the image of ,god1 but he cannot mean what he says1 unless his ,god has a material body2 we1 on the other hand1 do not indeed believe that the body of ,god-the incorporation of all life-is like the body of a man1 more than we believe each one of our own cells or subordinate personalities to be like a man in miniature2 but we nevertheless hold that each of our tributary selves is so far made after the likeness of the body corporate that it possesses all our main and essential characteristics-that is to say1 that it can waste and repair itself2 can feel1 move1 and remember4 ,to this extent1 also1 we-who stand in mean proportional between our tributary personalities and ,god-are made in the likeness of ,god2 for we1 and ,god1 and our subordinate cells alike possess the essential characteristics of life which have been above recited4 ,it is more true1 therefore1 for us to say that we are made in the likeness of ,god than for the orthodox ,theologian to do so4 ,nor1 again1 do we find difficulty in adopting such an expression as that ,god has taken our nature upon ,him4 ,we hold this as firmly1 and much more so1 than ,christians can do1 but we say that this is no new thing for ,him to do1 for that ,he has taken flesh and dwelt among us from the day that ,he first assumed our shape1 some millions of years ago1 until now4 ,god cannot become man more especially than ,he can become other living forms1 any more than we can be our eyes more especially than any other of our organs4 ,we may develop larger eyes1 so that our eyes may come to occupy a still more important place in our economy than they do at present2 and in a similar way the human race may become a more predominant part of ,god than it now is-but we cannot admit that one living form is more like ,god than another2 we must hold all equally like ,him1 inasmuch as they keep ever1 as ,buffon says1 the same fundamental unity1 in spite of differences of detail-nutrition1 development1 reproduction 7and1 ,i would add1 memory7 being the common traits of all organic bodies4 ,the utmost we can admit is1 that some embodiments of the ,spirit of ,life may be more important than others to the welfare of ,life as a whole1 in the same way as some of our organs are more important than others to ourselves4 ,but the above resemblances between the language which we can adopt intelligently and that which ,theologians use vaguely1 seem to reduce the differences of opinion between the two contending parties to disputes about detail4 ,for even those who believe their ideas to be the most definite1 and who picture to themselves a ,god as anthropomorphic as ,he was represented by ,raffaelle1 are yet not prepared to stand by their ideas if they are hard pressed in the same way as we are by ours4 ,those who say that ,god became man and took flesh upon ,him1 and that ,he is now perfect ,god and perfect man of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting1 will yet not mean that ,christ has a heart1 blood1 a stomach1 etc41 like man's1 which1 if he has not1 it is idle to speak of him as perfect man4 ,i am persuaded that they do not mean this1 nor wish to mean it2 but that they have been led into saying it by a series of steps which it is very easy to understand and sympathise sic with1 if they are considered with any diligence4 ,for our forefathers1 though they might and did feel the existence of a ,personal ,god in the world1 yet could not demonstrate this existence1 and made mistakes in their endeavour sic to persuade themselves that they understood thoroughly a truth which they had as yet perceived only from a long distance4 ,hence all the dogmatism and theology of many centuries4 ,it was impossible for them to form a clear or definite conception concerning ,god until they had studied ,his works more deeply1 so as to grasp the idea of many animals of different kinds and with no apparent connection between them1 being yet truly parts of one and the same animal which comprised them in the same way as a tree comprises all its buds4 ,they might speak of this by a figure of speech1 but they could not see it as a fact4 ,before this could be intended literally1 ,evolution must be grasped1 and not ,evolution as taught in what is now commonly called ,darwinism1 but the old teleological ,darwinism of eighty years ago4 ,nor is this again sufficient1 for it must be supplemented by a perception of the oneness of personality between parents and offspring1 the persistence of memory through all generations1 the latency of this memory until rekindled by the recurrence of the associated ideas1 and the unconsciousness with which repeated acts come to be performed4 ,these are modern ideas which might be caught sight of now and again by prophets in time past1 but which are even now mastered and held firmly only by the few4 ,when once1 however1 these ideas have been accepted1 the chief difference between the orthodox ,god and the ,god who can be seen of all men is1 that the first is supposed to have existed from all time1 while the second has only lived for more millions of years than our minds can reckon intelligently2 the first is omnipresent in all space1 while the second is only present in the living forms upon this earth-that is to say1 is only more widely present than our minds can intelligently embrace4 ,the first is omnipotent and all-wise2 the second is only quasi-omnipotent and quasi all-wise4 ,it is true1 then1 that we deprive ,god of that infinity which orthodox ,theologians have ascribed to ,him1 but the bounds we leave ,him are of such incalculable extent that nothing can be imagined more glorious or vaster2 and in return for the limitations we have assigned to ,him1 we render it possible for men to believe in ,him1 and love ,him1 not with their lips only1 but with their hearts and lives4 ,which1 ,i may now venture to ask my readers1 is the true ,god-the ,god of the ,theologian1 or ,he whom we may see around us1 and in whose presence we stand each hour and moment of our lives8 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,life ,,everlasting ,let us now consider the life which we can look forward to with certainty after death1 and the moral government of the world here on earth4 ,if we could hear the leaves complaining to one another that they must die1 and commiserating the hardness of their lot in having ever been induced to bud forth1 we should1 ,i imagine1 despise them for their peevishness more than we should pity them4 ,we should tell them that though we could not see reason for thinking that they would ever hang again upon the same-or any at all similar-bough as the same individual leaves1 after they had once faded and fallen off1 yet that as they had been changing personalities without feeling it during the whole of their leafhood1 so they would on death continue to do this selfsame thing by entering into new phases of life4 ,true1 death will deprive them of conscious memory concerning their now current life2 but1 though they die as leaves1 they live in the tree whom they have helped to vivify1 and whose growth and continued well-being is due solely to this life and death of its component personalities4 ,we consider the cells which are born and die within us yearly to have been sufficiently honoured sic in having contributed their quotum to our life2 why should we have such difficulty in seeing that a healthy enjoyment and employment of our life will give us a sufficient reward in that growth of ,god wherein we may live more truly and effectually after death than we have lived when we were conscious of existence8 ,is ,handel dead when he influences and sets in motion more human beings in three months now than during the whole1 probably1 of the years in which he thought that he was alive8 ,what is being alive if the power to draw men for many miles in order that they may put themselves en rapport with him is not being so8 ,true1 ,handel no longer knows the power which he has over us1 but this is a small matter2 he no longer animates six feet of flesh and blood1 but he lives in us as the dead leaf lives in the tree4 ,he is with ,god1 and ,god knows him though he knows himself no more4 ,this should suffice1 and ,i observe in practice does suffice1 for all reasonable persons4 ,it may be said that one day the tree itself must die1 and the leaves no longer live therein2 and so1 also1 that the very ,god or ,life of the ,world will one day perish1 as all that is born must surely in the end die4 ,but they who fret upon such grounds as this must be in so much want of a grievance that it were a cruelty to rob them of one3 if a man who is fond of music tortures himself on the ground that one day all possible combinations and permutations of sounds will have been exhausted so that there can be no more new tunes1 the only thing we can do with him is to pity him and leave him2 nor is there any better course than this to take with those idle people who worry themselves and others on the score that they will one day be unable to remember the small balance of their lives that they have not already forgotten as unimportant to them-that they will one day die to the balance of what they have not already died to4 ,i never knew a well-bred or amiable person who complained seriously of the fact that he would have to die4 ,granted we must all sometimes find ourselves feeling sorry that we cannot remain for ever at our present age1 and that we may die so much sooner than we like2 but these regrets are passing with well-disposed people1 and are a sine qua non for the existence of life at all4 ,for if people could live for ever so as to suffer from no such regret1 there would be no growth nor development in life2 if1 on the other hand1 there were no unwillingness to die1 people would commit suicide upon the smallest contradiction1 and the race would end in a twelvemonth4 ,we then offer immortality1 but we do not offer resurrection from the dead2 we say that those who die live in the ,lord whether they be just or unjust1 and that the present growth of ,god is the outcome of all past lives2 but we believe that as they live in ,god-in the effect they have produced upon the universal life-when once their individual life is ended1 so it is ,god who knows of their life thenceforward and not themselves2 and we urge that this immortality1 this entrance into the joy of the ,lord1 this being ever with ,god1 is true1 and can be apprehended by all men1 and that the perception of it should and will tend to make them lead happier1 healthier lives2 whereas the commonly received opinion is true with a stage truth only1 and has little permanent effect upon those who are best worth considering4 ,nevertheless the expressions in common use among the orthodox fit in so perfectly with facts1 which we must all acknowledge1 that it is impossible not to regard the expressions as founded upon a prophetic perception of the facts4 ,two things stand out with sufficient clearness4 ,the first is the rarity of suicide even among those who rail at life most bitterly4 ,the other is the little eagerness with which those who cry out most loudly for a resurrection desire to begin their new life4 ,when comforting a husband upon the loss of his wife we do not tell him we hope he will soon join her2 but we should certainly do this if we could even pretend we thought the husband would like it4 ,i can never remember having felt or witnessed any pain1 bodily or mental1 which would have made me or anyone else receive a suggestion that we had better commit suicide without indignantly asking how our adviser would like to commit suicide himself4 ,yet there are so many and such easy ways of dying that indignation at being advised to commit suicide arises more from enjoyment of life than from fear of the mere physical pain of dying4 ,granted that there is much deplorable pain in the world from ill-health1 loss of money1 loss of reputation1 misconduct of those nearest to us1 or what not1 and granted that in some cases these causes do drive men to actual self-destruction1 yet suffering such as this happens to a comparatively small number1 and occupies comparatively a small space in the lives of those to whom it does happen4 ,what1 however1 have we to say to those cases in which suffering and injustice are inflicted upon defenceless sic people for years and years1 so that the iron enters into their souls1 and they have no avenger4 ,can we give any comfort to such sufferers8 and1 if not1 is our religion any better than a mockery-a filling the rich with good things and sending the hungry empty away8 ,can we tell them1 when they are oppressed with burdens1 yet that their cry will come up to ,god and be heard8 ,the question suggests its own answer1 for assuredly our ,god knows our innermost secrets3 there is not a word in our hearts but ,he knoweth it altogether2 ,he knoweth our down-sitting and our uprising1 ,he is about our path and about our bed1 and spieth out all our ways2 ,he has fashioned us behind and before1 and we cannot attain such knowledge1 for1 like all knowledge when it has become perfect1 it is too excellent for us4 ,whither then1 says ,david1 shall ,i go from thy ,spirit1 or whither shall ,i go1 then1 from thy presence8 ,if ,i climb up into heaven thou art there2 if ,i go down into hell thou art there also4 ,if ,i take the wings of the morning and remain in the uttermost parts of the sea2 even there also shall thy hand lead me1 and thy right hand shall hold me4 ,if ,i say peradventure the darkness shall cover me1 then shall my night be turned into day3 the darkness and light to thee are both alike4 ,for my reins are thine2 thou hast covered me in my mother's womb4 ,my bones are not hid from thee3 though ,i be made secretly and fashioned beneath in the earth1 thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect2 and in thy book were all my members written1 which day by day were fashioned when as yet there was none of them4 ,do ,i not hate them1 ,o ,lord1 that hate thee8 and am ,i not grieved with them that rise up against thee8 ,yea1 ,i hate them right sore1 as though they were mine enemies4 7,psalm ,,cxxxix47 ,there is not a word of this which we cannot endorse with more significance1 as well as with greater heartiness than those can who look upon ,god as ,he is commonly represented to them2 whatever comfort1 therefore1 those in distress have been in the habit of receiving from these and kindred passages1 we intensify rather than not4 ,we cannot1 alas6 make pain cease to be pain1 nor injustice easy to bear2 but we can show that no pain is bootless1 and that there is a tendency in all injustice to right itself2 suffering is not inflicted wilfully1 sic as it were by a magician who could have averted it2 nor is it vain in its results1 but unless we are cut off from ,god by having dwelt in some place where none of our kind can know of what has happened to us1 it will move ,god's heart to redress our grievance1 and will tend to the happiness of those who come after us1 even if not to our own4 ,the moral government of ,god over the world is exercised through us1 who are his ministers and persons1 and a government of this description is the only one which can be observed as practically influencing men's conduct4 ,god helps those who help themselves1 because in helping themselves they are helping ,him4 ,again1 ,vox ,populi vox ,dei4 ,the current feeling of our peers is what we instinctively turn to when we would know whether such and such a course of conduct is right or wrong2 and so ,paul clenches his list of things that the ,philippians were to hold fast with the words1 whatsoever things are of good fame-that is to say1 he falls back upon an appeal to the educated conscience of his age4 ,certainly the wicked do sometimes appear to escape punishment1 but it must be remembered there are punishments from within which do not meet the eye4 ,if these fall on a man1 he is sufficiently punished2 if they do not fall on him1 it is probable we have been over hasty in assuming that he is wicked4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,god ,,the ,,unknown ,the reader will already have felt that the panzoistic conception of ,god-the conception1 that is to say1 of ,god as comprising all living units in ,his own single person-does not help us to understand the origin of matter1 nor yet that of the primordial cell which has grown and unfolded itself into the present life of the world4 ,how was the world rendered fit for the habitation of the first germ of ,life8 ,how came it to have air and water1 without which nothing that we know of as living can exist8 ,was the world fashioned and furnished with aqueous and atmospheric adjuncts with a view to the requirements of the infant monad1 and to his due development8 ,if so1 we have evidence of design1 and if so of a designer1 and if so there must be ,some far vaster ,person who looms out behind our ,god1 and who stands in the same relation to him as he to us4 ,and behind this vaster and more unknown ,god there may be yet another1 and another1 and another4 ,it is certain that ,life did not make the world with a view to its own future requirements4 ,for the world was at one time red hot1 and there can have been no living being upon it4 ,nor is it conceivable that matter in which there was no life-inasmuch as it was infinitely hotter than the hottest infusion which any living germ can support-could gradually come to be alive without impregnation from a living parent4 ,all living things that we know of have come from other living things with bodies and souls1 whose existence can be satisfactorily established in spite of their being often too small for our detection4 ,since1 then1 the world was once without life1 and since no analogy points in the direction of thinking that life can spring up spontaneously1 we are driven to suppose that it was introduced into this world from some other source extraneous to it altogether1 and if so we find ourselves irresistibly drawn to the inquiry whether the source of the life that is in the world-the impregnator of this earth-may not also have prepared the earth for the reception of his offspring1 as a hen makes an egg-shell or a peach a stone for the protection of the germ within it8 ,not only are we drawn to the inquiry1 but we are drawn also to the answer that the earth was so prepared designedly by a ,person with body and soul who knew beforehand the kind of thing he required1 and who took the necessary steps to bring it about4 ,if this is so we are members indeed of the ,god of this world1 but we are not his children2 we are children of the ,unknown and ,vaster ,god who called him into existence2 and this in a far more literal sense than we have been in the habit of realising sic to ourselves4 ,for it may be doubted whether the monads are not as truly seminal in character as the procreative matter from which all animals spring4 ,it must be remembered that if there is any truth in the view put forward in ,life and ,habit1 and in ,evolution ,old and ,new 7and ,i have met with no serious attempt to upset the line of argument taken in either of these books71 then no complex animal or plant can reach its full development without having already gone through the stages of that development on an infinite number of past occasions4 ,an egg makes itself into a hen because it knows the way to do so1 having already made itself into a hen millions and millions of times over2 the ease and unconsciousness with which it grows being in themselves sufficient demonstration of this fact4 ,at each stage in its growth the chicken is reminded1 by a return of the associated ideas1 of the next step that it should take1 and it accordingly takes it4 ,but if this is so1 and if also the congeries of all the living forms in the world must be regarded as a single person1 throughout their long growth from the primordial cell onwards to the present day1 then1 by parity of reasoning1 the person thus compounded-that is to say1 ,life or ,god-should have already passed through a growth analogous to that which we find he has taken upon this earth on an infinite number of past occasions2 and the development of each class of life1 with its culmination in the vertebrate animals and in man1 should be due to recollection by ,god of his having passed through the same stages1 or nearly so1 in worlds and universes1 which we know of from personal recollection1 as evidenced in the growth and structure of our bodies1 but concerning which we have no other knowledge whatsoever4 ,so small a space remains to me that ,i cannot pursue further the reflections which suggest themselves4 ,a few concluding considerations are here alone possible4 ,we know of three great concentric phases of life1 and we are not without reason to suspect a fourth4 ,if there are so many there are very likely more1 but we do not know whether there are or not4 ,the innermost sphere of life we know of is that of our own cells4 ,these people live in a world of their own1 knowing nothing of us1 nor being known by ourselves until very recently4 ,yet they can be seen under a microscope2 they can be taken out of us1 and may then be watched going here and there in perturbation of mind1 endeavouring sic to find something in their new environment that will suit them1 and then dying on finding how hopelessly different it is from any to which they have been accustomed4 ,they live in us1 and make us up into the single person which we conceive ourselves to form2 we are to them a world comprising an organic and an inorganic kingdom1 of which they consider themselves to be the organic1 and whatever is not very like themselves to be the inorganic4 ,whether they are composed of subordinate personalities or not we do not know1 but we have no reason to think that they are1 and if we touch ground1 so to speak1 with life in the units of which our own bodies are composed1 it is likely that there is a limit also in an upward direction1 though we have nothing whatever to guide us as to where it is1 nor any certainty that there is a limit at all4 ,we are ourselves the second concentric sphere of life1 we being the constituent cells which unite to form the body of ,god4 ,of the third sphere we know a single member only-the ,god of this world2 but we see also the stars in heaven1 and know their multitude4 ,analogy points irresistibly in the direction of thinking that these other worlds are like our own1 begodded and full of life2 it also bids us believe that the ,god of their world is begotten of one more or less like himself1 and that his growth has followed the same course as that of all other growths we know of4 ,if so1 he is one of the constituent units of an unknown and vaster personality who is composed of ,gods1 as our ,god is composed of all the living forms on earth1 and as all those living forms are composed of cells4 ,this is the ,unknown ,god4 ,beyond this second ,god we cannot at present go1 nor should we wish to do so1 if we are wise4 ,it is no reproach to a system that it does not profess to give an account of the origin of things2 the reproach rather should lie against a system which professed to explain it1 for we may be well assured that such a profession would1 for the present at any rate1 be an empty boast4 ,it is enough if a system is true as far as it goes2 if it throws new light on old problems1 and opens up vistas which reveal a hope of further addition to our knowledge1 and this ,i believe may be fairly claimed for the theory of life put forward in ,life and ,habit and ,evolution1 ,old and ,new1 and for the corollary insisted upon in these pages2 a corollary which follows logically and irresistibly if the position ,i have taken in the above-named books is admitted4 ,let us imagine that one of the cells of which we are composed could attain to a glimmering perception of the manner in which he unites with other cells1 of whom he knows very little1 so as to form a greater compound person of whom he has hitherto known nothing at all4 ,would he not do well to content himself with the mastering of this conception1 at any rate for a considerable time8 ,would it be any just ground of complaint against him on the part of his brother cells1 that he had failed to explain to them who made the man 7or1 as he would call it1 the omnipotent deity7 whose existence and relations to himself he had just caught sight of8 ,but if he were to argue further on the same lines as those on which he had travelled hitherto1 and were to arrive at the conclusion that there might be other men in the world4 besides the one whom he had just learnt to apprehend1 it would be still no refutation or just ground of complaint against him that he had failed to show the manner in which his supposed human race had come into existence4 ,here our cell would probably stop4 ,he could hardly be expected to arrive at the existence of animals and plants differing from the human race1 and uniting with that race to form a single ,person or ,god1 in the same way as he has himself united with other cells to form man4 ,the existence1 and much more the roundness of the earth itself1 would be unknown to him1 except by way of inference and deduction4 ,the only universe which he could at all understand would be the body of the man of whom he was a component part4 ,how would not such a cell be astounded if all that we know ourselves could be suddenly revealed to him1 so that not only should the vastness of this earth burst upon his dazzled view1 but that of the sun and of his planets also1 and not only these1 but the countless other suns which we may see by night around us4 ,yet it is probable that an actual being is hidden from us1 which no less transcends the wildest dream of our theologians than the existence of the heavenly bodies transcends the perception of our own constituent cells4 ,,the ,,end