INTRODUCTION 



him, that the other, the " Greek," the imma- 

 nent God, has to be conceived in a sense which 

 is indeed still somewhat anthropomorphic. But 

 Fiske hereupon restates his former antithesis 

 beween "anthropomorphism" and "cosmism" 

 with the following interesting variations : " Be- 

 tween the two ideas of God which we have exhib- 

 ited in such striking contrast, there is neverthe- 

 less one point of resemblance ; and this point is 

 fundamental, since it is the point in virtue of 

 which both are entitled to be called theistic ideas. 

 In both there is presumed to be a likeness of some 

 sort between God and man. In both there is an 

 element of anthropomorphism. Even upon this 

 their common ground, however, there is a wide 

 difference between the two conceptions. In the 

 one the anthropomorphic element is gross, in 

 the other it is refined and subtle. The differ- 

 ence is so far-reaching that some years ago I 

 proposed to mark it by contrasting these two 

 conceptions of God as Anthropomorphic The- 

 ism and Cosmic Theism. For the doctrine 

 which represents God as immanent in the uni- 

 verse and revealing himself in the orderly suc- 

 cession of events, the name Cosmic Theism is 

 eminently appropriate ; but it is not intended 

 by the antithetic nomenclature to convey the 

 impression that in cosmic theism there is no- 

 thing anthropomorphic." There is no doubt as 

 cxxvii 



