160 



relegated to obscurity by charging him with 

 ■enthusiasm and effervescence. But neither of 

 these terms is foreign or repugnant to Chris- 

 tianity, where properly used. 



We do not expect unquestioning acquiescence, 

 when we assert that the religion of the day is too 

 •conservative, as to its results. Abstruse concep- 

 tions and metaphysical argument may do for a 

 foundation, but the superstructure must be vital- 

 ized, hence emotional. 



We readily concede that emotional religion is 

 in the land, we do not, however, seek to be 

 critical nor technical when we differentiate 

 between emotion as a concept in religion and 

 emotional religion. 



Humanly speaking, "emotion has its end in 

 itself." Religiously, it never can have, and 

 maintain the purity of the religion of which it is 

 a part. 



Here lies the discriminating principle. Ever 

 has it been true that religion of emotion, and the 

 •emotional religion have been divorced, not so 

 much by the fact of emotion, as by the end or 

 use of it. 



There cannot be too much importance attached 

 to this proposition. It may truthfully be con- 

 ceded that the false religionist has an equal 

 .amount of emotion with the true, but the inspirer 

 And ultimatum are alwavs different. 



