inside the Church of England, and all through the Orthodox Christian bodies. The new Unitarians—all except the high and dry old fossil School-are now frankly Neo-Christian. As I say, one cannot see how the official priesthood in the Church of England can accept it. And hence we may suppose that a large section of the Church of England will have to pass into Catholicism, as it is rapidly doing. But in a vague and unsystematic way Neo-Christianity is at work in the Church and in all orthodox Churches. The way in which it is done is this: Priests and orthodox ministers now make no overt attempt to assert any coherent new version of the dogmas, and forbear to criticise the Bible. They have been warned, and they give it up. What they do is to drop the dogma quietly, they ignore Hellfire, are very vague about Heaven, magnify the Humanity of Christ, and discover in the Gospel of Christ all sorts of ideas that are historically long subsequent to Christ.

I recently received from a most learned and eloquent priest of the Episcopal Church a very interesting book, "The Brotherhood of Man," full of fine social teaching and spiritual and moral fervour. Much of it is really nothing less than the religion of Humanity. I do not say that there is anything unorthodox in this graceful book, anything which could be prosecuted by a Bishop in a Court. But it is largely infused with NeoChristianity. It drops almost all dogma, except the double nature of the Man-God Christ; it magnifies the

Humanity and almost ignores (without at all denying) the Divinity of Christ; it attributes to Jesus quite modern ideas about human brotherhood. Now if there is one thing that never crossed the mind of the historic Jesus it is this. And by enlarging on certain beautiful maxims and thoughts of Jesus and dropping the rest, the author arrives at a vision of the ultimate Brotherhood of Man, irrespective of creed, by human love, not by the blood of Christ.

I have seen a good deal of comment from Orthodox Nonconformity on my views of Orthodox Dissent. Much of it is friendly remonstrance with me for suggesting that Orthodox Nonconformists have rigid dogmas at all, that they insist on Biblical creeds, and especially that they rely exclusively on a book, and incline to any view of verbal inspiration of the Bible. I find myself on all sides assured that this rigid view of revealed truth is giving way. I have received a friendly and most interesting letter from a learned teacher in an official position amongst the Friends or Quakers, assuring me that they quite abandon literal and verbal inspiration, and welcome the newer and "higher criticism" of the Bible. Well, I am very glad to acknowledge all this. Of course, I was speaking very broadly of Orthodox Dissent, as historically known to the world, and I think I did it no injustice in saying that it was based on "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." We now see that Orthodox Dissent is very prone to accept degrees in importance, value, authenticity of the

books of Scripture, and is allowing much of the conventional dogmas to fall into obscurity. I read in the very able and authoritative organ of Orthodox Nonconformity: "The tendency amongst orthodox dissenters is to found their religion less and less upon a book but more and more upon a Man. They must make free use of modern criticism, and after all there remains the secret charm of the Gospel." Well! but that is the germ of Neo-Christianity. Neo-Christianity means magnifying the Man Jesus, insisting on his humanity and his human character-accepting modern criticism of the Bible— and resting on the secret charm of the Gospel, without literal belief in the whole Bible. That is not Orthodox Dissent, but is Unorthodox Dissent-it is NeoChristianity.

The religion of Humanity accepts, adopts, incorporates the Humanity of Jesus, the pathetic beauty of his character; it accepts the secret charm of the Gospel, rejecting its extravagances and absurdities and reverently using modern criticism to disentangle the chaff from the grain. We Positivists, too, in a sense, can go heartily with the Neo-Christian movement.

All that we ask is that it be quite honest, courageous, thorough, and scientific. All that we ask is not to found religion on any one man, and why on that one man-but on all truly great and good men. Why found it on the man Jesus rather than the man Paul,

or on the man Confucius, or the man Buddha, or the man Moses, or Socrates, or Augustine, or Dante, or Hume, or Comte? Why make so much of the secret charm of the Gospel, and nothing of the secret charm of Paul's "Letters," or Confucius' "Moral Aphorisms," or the secret charm of Plato, of Milton, of Shelley, or Goethe? There have been thousands of redeemers, saviours, mediators of mankind, none of them perfect, none quite wise; thousands of gospels, none of them perfect, none of them with more than glimpses and flashes of eternal truth.

The Philosophy of Humanity on a basis of encyclopædic science, crowned by the science of society and the science of human nature, explains, inspires and harmonises all these gospels. The religion of Humanity accepts, reverences, and adds new glory to all these redeemers, saviours, and mediators. It puts in his true place the young Jewish reformer and revolutionist, with his lyrical passion of tenderness. It puts in his true place the far grander apostle who followed, one whose shoe-latchet the young Galilean was not worthy to unloose the heroic Paul, with his profound insight into the human soul, and his new and sublime vision of the final Brotherhood of Man.

CHAPTER XII

THEISM

I

In this series of essays on the leading types of Theological Religion I have not been criticising any one of these types from any absolute point of view or on their intellectual basis, but solely on their effects as influencing Morality and Society: not dealing with their truth but with their usefulness as promoting a good life and sound moral and social union. All of them have their good effects. And if I have dwelt at all on their evil effects, it has been to show that the Religion of Humanity, adopting and incorporating their valuable side, avoids their bad effects.

If there is one thing which Positivists have steadily kept in view, it is that it is the essence of Positivism to represent a positivist faith-not a negative criticism. We never disturb beliefs or insinuate doubts. We never assail Christian creeds or depreciate the Bible; much less do we present scepticism, Atheism, or even Agnosticism as an adequate resting place in the great problems of Religion and Philosophy. We want to enlarge and animate the spiritual nature. But as our aim is and must be to arrive at solid realities, we must be free to examine what is only a hollow and delusive reality.

Monotheism is altogether a shrinkage from Polytheism. Any single Deity in the Heaven or in Space is to