Page:Mary Whiton Calkins - The Foundation in Royce's Philosophy for Christian Theism (The Philosophical Review, 1916-05-01).pdf/6

№.&#93; to the question would of course invalidate the conclusion, based on the study of Royce’s earlier books, that his position coincides with that of the Christian theist, for every theist distinguishes between God and the church. To the discussion of this problem the next following paragraphs are devoted.

Unquestionably, Royce seems by certain statements to make the universal community equivalent to the Self of his earlier books. He declares ‘this essentially social universe … to be real, and to be in fact the sole and supreme reality—the Absolute,” and he asks: “‘What kind of salvation does it offer? … What does it call upon a reasonable man to do?’’ Yet, in spite of expressions like these, I believe that Royce does not actually identify the Absolute Self with the Universal Community. His meaning, as I conceive it, is more exactly stated when he says that “the divine life is expressed in the form of a community” and that ‘‘the whole real world is the expression of one divine process … the process of the Spirit.” ‘To be expressed by’ does not mean ‘to be constituted by’; and the ‘divine life’ and ‘the spirit’ are distinguished from the ‘community’ and from the world, though not external to them. This is the meaning, also, of the repeated assertion that the real world, conceived in Charles Peirce’s fashion, as a vast system of signs, “contains the interpreter of these signs. … Its processes,” Royce adds, “‘are infinite in their temporal varieties. But their interpreter, the spirit of this universal community,—never absorbing varieties nor permitting them to blend—compares, and, through a real life, interprets them all.” The plain implication of these passages is that ‘interpreter’ and ‘spirit’ not only include but transcend world and church. Thus, it is at least compatible with the main trend of The Problem of Christianity to suppose that Royce, while primarily conceiving Christianity in its relation to the church, or beloved community, none the less distinguishes God as spirit, counsellor, or interpreter from