elements in other forms;" and secondly, "Religious development is best promoted by the free intercourse of its most diverse manifestations."

But I foresee that many, on hearing these rules, will object to them, and their objections must not remain unanswered. Does not religion, they will ask, when thus allowed constantly to associate with art, science, and philosophy, with a refined, but human, and therefore always somewhat corrupt civilisation, run the risk of being deprived of her sweet savour and her vigour, and, to please her companions, of being induced to abate something of her strict demands, and to part with something of her earnestness? Must she not, ever amid worldly surroundings, unavoidably be contaminated by them, and at last become worldly herself? Is it not to be feared that, by studying such divergent opinions, and by searching for religious truth in so many diverse systems, men will become disloyal to their own religion, be shaken in their convictions, and at last, in utter perplexity and despair, exclaim, “What is truth?" Will this freedom of thought not lead to want of principle, and to indifference to the purity and truth of their own religion, the precious fruits of so much conflict and of so long and toilsome a process of development? Or, to adhere to our scientific province for the objections mentioned are all of a practical character-is it not the true nature of religion to sever herself from an unholy world, and to

seek the solitude extolled by our devout poet Lodensteijn?—

"O holy solitude!

In commune with my God,

Would I were one with Thee!"

And will not religion, by allowing herself to be carried along with the stream of general development, insensibly neglect her own inward development? Groen van Prinsterer, the former leader of the then small religious-political party in Holland which called itself anti-revolutionary, used to say of it, "In our isolation lies our power." Does this not apply to religion everywhere and always, and is it not precisely in her isolation that her power consists ?

I at once admit all this. I even go a step further, and maintain that the more religion develops, the more she will advance in what I might call her chastity— that is, the more she will shrink from exposing what she deems holiest to the curious gaze and the unskilled judgment of the profanum vulgus, an often thoughtless and superficial world. Least of all should I wish to see her led and controlled by any extraneous power, and thus deprived of her independence; for, as I shall afterwards show, her independence increases with her advancing development, and is one of its indications. And what applies to religion in general holds true of each religious community in its relation to others. Intolerance is an ugly failing, and those who demand

VOL. I.

Q

freedom for themselves are bound to accord it to others. But each communion, each church, if it is to be of any value, and to contribute to man's religious development, must be consistent, and must form, maintain, and vindicate its own character. It is not merely entitled, but solemnly bound to do this.

Do not, however, suppose that this is forbidden. or prevented by the above-mentioned laws which we sought to deduce from history. Those who have considered the meaning of the word "assimilation," which I have used advisedly, will readily understand this. Development, as I have said, is promoted by assimilation; religion assimilates whatever is good and true in general culture; and each form of religion assimilates whatever is good and true in other forms. Does this mean that religion must yield and conform to the demands of worldly culture, to the whims of changing fashion, to the not always irrefragable dicta of science, or to philosophical systems which may be overthrown by a succeeding generation? Does it mean that a church is simply to copy and to borrow the forms of a different communion, its doctrine and cult, though at variance with her own character and stage of development, or at all events that she should adopt a certain eclecticism? I have practically answered these questions already. Assimilation is appropriation of what conduces to one's own growth and increases

one's own spiritual possessions. Development does not therefore cease to be a purely inward process.

And as to the practical objection that the law of development is fraught with danger, we do not deny it but it is only dangerous for the weak, for those who have no religious conviction of their own, for those who are not rooted and grounded in their faith. If you are weak and ill, remain in your sick-room, and shut the windows close; for the fresh outer air, the breath of life to the healthy, might be fatal to you. So there are conditions and periods in religious life when its seclusion, for a time at least, may be salutary and even necessary. But living religion demands the open air of intellectual intercourse with general culture and the religious development of mankind.

All growth, all development, all life is a battle, and no battle is free from danger. But when the heart or vital principle is sound it is braced by the struggle, and will in the end surmount the danger. I again think of the Israelites. Their heart was sound. Conceptions which caused the weak among them to stray were therefore welcomed by prophets animated by the Holy Spirit, and independently utilised by them in order to exalt and magnify their religion. And that religion, completed and perfected, has become the religion of the most highly developed nations in the world.

LECTURE IX.

INFLUENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT

OF RELIGION.

WE shall now continue our inquiry into the laws of development both general and religious, or, to express it more modestly and prudently, into the requisites for the promotion of development.

And the first question I propose to discuss isWhat place the individual person occupies in the process of development, and how far he contributes to it. As this problem is somewhat complex it is apt to be neglected, but for that very reason it is one of the utmost importance. The fact that it has received so little attention is probably the result of misapprehension, as some have supposed that development always meant unconscious growth, which would exclude the conscious co-operation of individuals. But they have forgotten that the "development of religion" is a kind of elliptical term, denoting,