to be controversial, but only to
make clear the general sense in which the term Pantheism is here used.
Not that it would be possible at the outset to indicate all that is
implicit in the definition. I only wish to premise plainly that I am not
concerned with any view of the world such as implies or admits that,
whether by process of creation, or emanation, or self-division, or
evolution, the oneness of the Eternal has ever been marred, or anything
other than the being of God has been or can be produced.

[Sidenote: Pantheism either Philosophical or Religious or both.]

[Sidenote: Pantheism as a Religion almost Entirely Modern.]

[Sidenote: Mystics not necessarily Pantheist.]

But before passing on to the promised historical review, it is, perhaps,
necessary to refer again to a remark previously made, that Pantheism may
be considered either from the point of view of philosophy, or from that
of religion. Not that the two points of view are mutually exclusive.
But, as a matter of fact, Pantheism as a religion is, with certain
exceptions among Indian saints and later Neoplatonists, almost entirely
a modern development, of which Spinoza was the first distinct and devout
teacher. For this statement justification will be given hereafter.
Meantime, to deprecate adverse prejudice, I may suggest that a careful
study of the most ancient forms of Pantheism seems to show that they
were purely philosophical; an endeavour to reach in thought the ultimate
reality which polytheism travestied, and which the senses disguised. But
little or no attempt was made to substitute the contemplation of the
Eternal for the worship of mediator divinities. Thus, in the same spirit
in which Socrates ordered the sacrifice of a cock to Aesculapius for his
recovery from the disease of mortal life, philosophical Pantheists,
whether Egyptian or Greek, or even Indian,[1] satisfied their religious
instincts by hearty communion with the popular worship of traditional
gods. Or, if it is thought that the mediaeval mystics were religious
Pantheists, a closer examination of their devout utterances will show
that, though they approximated to Pantheism, and even used language such
as, if interpreted logically, must have implied it, yet they carefully
reserved articles of the ecclesiastical creed, entirely inconsistent
with the fundamental position that there is nothing but God. Indeed,
their favourite comparison of creature life to the ray of a candle is
not r