nuscripts are of no importance for Christian dogma. Whether in the first
Epistle to Timothy iii. 16, we read {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA~} for {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA~}, that is, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, is also not
quite immaterial. Still I admit that in comparison to the problems
presented to me by the Horseherd and his comrades, these _variae lectiones_
will not rack our brains nearly so badly. I have been reproached for still
owing my friends an answer to the attacks which they directed exclusively
against Christian religion. It was, however, impossible to deal thoroughly
with these matters, without first taking into consideration their
objections against all religion.
I therefore first endeavoured to make clear to my unknown friends two
things, which constitute the foundation of all religion: first, that the
world is rational, that it is the result of thought, and that in this
sense only is it the creation of a being which possesses reason, or is
reason itself (the Logos); and secondly, that mind or thought cannot be
the outcome of matter, but on the contrary is the _prius_ of all things.
To this end a statement of the results of the philosophy of language was
absolutely necessary, partly to establish more clearly the relation of
thought to speech, partly to comprehend the true meaning of the Logos or
the Word in the New Testament, and understand in how easily intelligible
and perfectly reasonable a sense the term "Word" (Logos) can be applied to
the Son of God.
I am not one of those who pretend to find no difficulties in all these
questions. On the contrary, I have wrestled with them for years, and
remember well the joy I felt when first the true historical meaning of the
opening of the Fourth Gospel, "In the beginning was the word," became
clear to me. It is true that I turned no somersaults like the Horseherd,
but I was well satisfied. I do not therefore consider the objections
raised by him as unfounded or without justification; on the contrary, it
were better if others would speak with the same freedom as he has done,
although a calmer tone in such matters would be more effective than the
fortissimo of the Horseherd.
What aided me most in the solution of these religious or theological
difficulties, was a comparative study of the religi
|