the beauty of stars and flowers and the dignity of inexorable justice.  There could be no finer metaphor for such a correlation than Fatherhood and Sonship.  But the trouble is that it seems impossible to most people to continue to regard the relations of the Father to the Son as being simply a mystical metaphor.  Presently some materialistic bias swings them in a moment of intellectual carelessness back to the idea of sexual filiation.

And it may further be suggested that the extreme aloofness and inhumanity, which is logically necessary in the idea of a Creator God, of an Infinite God, was the reason, so to speak, for the invention of a Holy Spirit, as something proceeding from him, as something bridging the great gulf, a Comforter, a mediator descending into the sphere of the human understanding.  That, and the suggestive influence of the Egyptian Trinity that was then being worshipped at the Serapeum, and which had saturated the thought of Alexandria with the conception of a trinity in unity, are probably the realities that account for the Third Person of the Christian Trinity.  At any rate the present writer believes that the discussions that shaped the Christian theology we know were dominated by such natural and fundamental thoughts.  These discussions were, of course, complicated from the outset; and particularly were they complicated by the identification of the man Jesus with the theological Christ, by materialistic expectations of his second coming, by materialistic inventions about his “miraculous” begetting, and by the morbid speculations about virginity and the like that arose out of such grossness.  They were still further complicated by the idea of the textual inspiration of the scriptures, which presently swamped thought in textual interpretation.  That swamping came very early in the development of Christianity.  The writer of St. John’s gospel appears still to be thinking with a considerable freedom, but Origen is already hopelessly in the net of the texts.  The writer of St. John’s gospel was a free man, but Origen was a superstitious man.  He was emasculated mentally as well as bodily through his bibliolatry.  He quotes; his predecessor thinks.

But the writer throws out these guesses at the probable intentions of early Christian thought in passing.  His business here is the definition of a position.  The writer’s position here in this book is, firstly, complete Agnosticism in the matter of God the Creator, and secondly, entire faith in the matter of God the Redeemer.  That, so to speak, is the key of his book.  He cannot bring the two ideas under the same term God.  He uses the word God therefore for the God in our hearts only, and he uses the term the Veiled Being for the ultimate mysteries of the universe, and he declares that we do not know and perhaps cannot know in any comprehensible terms the relation of the Veiled Being to that living reality in our lives who is, in his terminology, the true God.  Speaking from the point of view of practical religion, he is restricting and defining the word God, as meaning only the personal God of mankind, he is restricting it so as to exclude all cosmogony and ideas of providence from our religious thought and leave nothing but the essentials of the religious life.