MODERN SCIENCE AND PANTHEISM 6 1 



time, the original theistic formula — which in its 

 contrasting of theism against deism and pantheism is 

 unobjectionable, and correct enough so far as it goes 

 — is brought in the end to contradict its own essen- 

 tial idea. 



Still it must never be forgotten that these ill- 

 conceived efforts at the completer definition of 

 theism are made in behalf of a real distinction. 

 We shall find it true that there is a conception of 

 the world, for which deism may be a very proper 

 name ; and another, for which pantheism is the 

 only title really fitting. We shall see that they 

 are both radically distinct from theism, which may 

 be defined as the doctrine of a Personal God who 

 reveals himself by such an immanence in the world 

 as contributes to transform it into his own image 

 through the agencies of moral freedom ; a God 

 indwelling, as the central guiding Light, in a 

 realm of self-governing persons who immortally 

 do his will in freely doing their own, and fulfil 

 their own in doing his. Nor shall we fail to find 

 that the doctrines named deism and pantheism 

 are historic doctrines. They are not abstrac- 

 tions merely conceivable, but have been advocated 

 by actual men of a very real persuasion and a very 

 discernible influence. Neither can I doubt that 

 these two doctrines, in their deviations from tlie 

 theistic theory, will be recognised by our sound 



