MEANING AND HISTORY OF THE LOGOS OF PHILOSOPHY. 273 
the earth. I say, too, not that Stoicism is equal to Christianity, 
but in some respects superior to some Christian types of 
character. The Christian can look forward, and does look for- 
ward, of course, if he is, in the true sense of the word, a 
Christian, to beatification, when he shall see God and shall have 
commune with Him in perfect bliss. He is certain of a hereafter. 
I do not say that the trwe Christian is influenced by the desire of 
the attainment of any pleasure, however refined it may be. The 
best Christians, even humble people, have got into a much higher 
stage than that; but I say the prospect of future happiness is con- 
tained in the Christian conception, and I say it seems to me a higher 
revelation of the Divine nature in a man which enables him to say, 
like the Stoic Epictetus, “What can I, a poor lame old man, do 
but sing praises to God ?”—lookinge to no future whatever,— 
to no such future as the Christian would; it seems to me to 
resemble the attitude taken by the author of the Book of Job, 
and that is about the highest conception of the moral position 
which is attainable by the human mind,—boundless submission 
to God for his own sake, without any reference to any sort of 
enjoyment, physical, moral, or spiritual. I do hope, if he can, 
that the author will reconsider what he says on the Stoics; I am 
greatly indebted to them myself, and if he can see his way to 
modify his statement about them, I shall be glad. The next point 
to which I will refer is half-way down page 259, where the author 
says, “A so-called God, who, regarded as a Sovereign, was practi- 
cally synonymous with Fate and universal Law in operation, and 
whose love, like that of Spinoza’s deity, was neither looked for 
nor desired, lacked those attributes which, from a practical point 
of view, may be considered indispensable to personality.’ I should 
like to say that I had the same opinion, until within the last year 
and a half, of Spinoza, and of what he says of the attitude of a 
“true lover of God towards God,” as the author has; but I believe 
now that Dr. Caird was correct in saying, “I think Spinoza was not 
rightly understood,” and J do not know that he was rightly under- 
stood even by Goethe, when he considered that Spinoza’s “lover of 
God ” did not really wish for love from God. I do not wish to go 
into that, but simply to invite the author, before he publishes this, 
to reconsider what he says on the subject of Spinoza. 
The AuTrHor.—First of all in reference to the remarks which 
fell from the last speaker but one, I may say that in treating 
