to a study of the works of this writer. Both his method and the content of his thinking were especially congenial to me. My own speculative predilections were well in harmony with his assumptions. I could not follow him throughout over the way he went, but I willingly went far with him; receiving much support for my Faith from what he had "excogitated," or thought out.

To Krause, neither the word Theism, nor Pantheism, expresses the Principle which satisfies fully man's ultimate apprehension, when thinking about Universal Being. He devised in the word Panentheism what he considered would be a far more satisfying symbol,- all thoughts and things considered. This term has, in recent years, received the endorsement of several leaders in religious speculation; and it is coming into use by many who, perhaps, never heard of its originator and great interpreter.

Rudolph Eucken, a thinker of wide influence to day, writing of the Renaissance, adopts, I observe, this term, as though it had become a part of the common vocabulary of Philosophy.

Eucken says, "We find here lofty natures and select groups of thinkers developing a nobler and deeper religion, a religion for religion's sake. Here endeavor soars above all visible and finite forms: the idea arises of a universal religion. The spontaneous joy in life which belonged to the Renaissance is glorified into a religion, which includes both Theism and Pantheism,-Panentheism,-exalting man to life unending by union with the Godhead." And he remarks of a later time, "There is much closer kinship to Panentheism, the creed of the noblest minds of the Renaissance, than to the distinctively Christian view which these men incline to look upon as a mere refuge for the weak and sickly. Religion for them is rather an invisible Presence which attends their work than a specific form of spiritual experience."

Then, in the wonderful selection of reflections made. from the writings of that rare-souled Frenchman of Switzerland, Henri Frederic Amiel,-his "Journal Intime," I have read ;—

"The minds which have reached the doctrine of Immanence are incomprehensible to the fanatics of transcendence. They will never understand,-these last, --that the Panentheism of Krause is ten times more religious than their dogmatic supernaturalism.”

I never became so fully a disciple that I could properly be named a follower of Krause, but I gladly acknowledge a great obligation to him because of the clearer apprehension, through him, of the philosophic grounding of my Faith.

I have always been gratified to know that such eminent historians of Philosophy as Erdmann and Ueberweg have generously recognized the importance of Krause's thinking. Froebel, I know, drew his philosophic inspiration chiefly from Krause's thought. Erdmann went so far as to claim that Krause's "profound teachings" are "important for the present age, not so much because of the number of his professed followers, as because of the number of those who, without naming him, plunder him."

Why Krause did not receive a larger recognition among his contemporaries? is a question not very difficult of answer, when it is remembered, first, that politically he was a persona non grata in official Germany. He was a believer in the sanctity and dignity of the individual man; he was of most earnest conviction in developing his wonderful social beliefs and aspirations under an autocratic government. His "Ideal of Humanity,"-Urbild der Menschheit-is a work to be classed with the most beautiful dreams of the

world's visionaries, in its proclamation of the way to, and its prophecies of, ultimate human blessedness. Krause was for a time accused, though most wrongfully, of collusion with the social revolutionaries of France.

Then, Krause, in advancing his speculations, felt that to make them wholly clear of misunderstanding and of confusion with other terms which bore fixed historic meanings, he must invent wholly "pure" German names. His "purism," thereupon, became so pure that his language was more difficult to understand even on the part of his own countrymen than among foreign readers.

Noting this fact, Erdmann remarks that it has become "an irony of fate that Krause's writings found more acceptance in Germany after his thoughts had been given expression in foreign speech, and, thus,-deprived of their pure German garb,-had been made known at home."

Whatever the reasons, however, it became fact at the outset, and, until recently at least, has remained the fact, that the largest discipleship of Krause's thought has been among other than German peoples, especially among Belgians, French, Spaniards and Italians. In these countries there have been some prominent scholars who have named Krause "the greatest among German thinkers."

Amiel, for instance, was a profound admirer of this illuminated, spiritual German. The following passage from his "Journal Intime" did much, long ago, to strengthen and to confirm my awakened longing to know Amiel as yet another "friend in the life of the spirit" :-

"This evening a feeling of emptiness took possession of me, and the solemn ideas of duty, the future, solitude, pressed themselves upon me. I gave myself to meditation. Read part of Krause's book, Urbild der Menschheit, which answered

marvellously to my thought and need. This philosopher has always a beneficient effect upon me: his sweet religious serenity gains upon me and invades me. He inspires me with a sense of peace and infinity.”

I make this tribute, gratefully, to Krause's memory for the reason that his influence was, in many ways, deeply instructive to me in the maturing of my Faith: and it has always been, since then, an inspiration. I do not wish, however, to place upon Krause responsibility for any of the deficite forms in which I have set forth the lines of argument I have used for later expositions of my Faith. I am indebted to him for much, especially for the term Panentheism, and for the methods of the thinking with which he illustrated the "Idea " expressed by it. Were I writing of theology, technically, I should gladly use this expressive terin "Panentheism" to signify my Theism.

d. An Exposition of my Faith in God. Some years after this interesting stay in Germany, when I was minister of All Sculs Church in Washington, D.C., I prepared with much enthusiasm, a lecture entitled “Faith in God" (using the word "faith" as belief rather than trust).

Later, in 1879, when I was invited to address a "Conference of Unitarian and other Liberal Christians" meeting in Philadephia, Pennsylvania, I took the substance of the argument of this lecture, and, associating with it man's questionings concerning the "Problem of Evil," offered my conclusions to the Conference. At the time, the later address embodied my most mature convictions on this greatest of all themes possible for man in his thinking concerning "God" and "Divine Providence."

I repeat both papers here that they may show in what

way the development of my Faith had been carried forward. They constitute a religious rather than a speculative statement of my belief. Farther on, I shall return to the theme by the way of distinctively philosophic speculation. I.

FAITH IN GOD.

In every adequate definition of Religion there is, for its foundation, some form of faith, or rather belief, in God. This faith may be as imperfect, as rudimentary, as that of the savage who thinks himself surrounded by multitudes of mysterious living powers which help or hurt him; or it may be as refined and mature as that of the modern philosopher who declares,-" That amid the mysteries which become the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will remain the one absolute certainty that man is ever in the presence of an infinite and eternal Energy from which all things proceed." The affirmations of Religion begin naturally, therefore, with the specific "faith" in God which lies at their foundation or source.

If I were required to indicate in a sentence the kind of faith upon which our religion is based, I should say,—It is the faith which is necessitated by the clearest knowledge and the most approved theory of the Universe, together with the demands of the most highly developed Moral Sense now existent among mankind.

An unprejudiced review of human history shows that, however originally a "revelation" that which is called the God-consciousness may have been, the definite form such consciousness has taken has always been dependent upon the current notion of the World and its phenomena, together with man's own moral needs. The history of Theology is the history of specific effects of man's growing interpretation of his environment and his ethical aspirations.

Much is written at the present day of the "Conflict of Religion and Science." There is, however, no real conflict between the two. There never has been a real conflict between them. What seems at times a struggle between