Page:The Conception of God (1897).djvu/126

Rh

And, now, what I have to say about the conception of God that we have had so imposingly set forth this evening, — a conception in which all the previous speakers, varying as they do, seem largely to agree, — what I have to say, at a stroke, is this: It does not seem to me to meet this criterion. As professed idealists, its advocates have come short of their calling. The doctrine is not idealistic enough. No doubt it has long gone by the name of Absolute Idealism, the name conferred upon it by Hegel, the weighty and justly celebrated thinker who first gave it a well-organised exposition. But I venture to contest the propriety of the name, and maintain, rather, that an Idealism of this character is not Absolute Idealism at all; that its exact fault is, not waiting for thought to take the fruitful roundness of its entire Ideal before declaring its equivalence to the Real.

In short, greatly as I admire all that has been said here to-night, gladly and gratefully as I recognise the genuinely philosophic temper and the authentic philosophic place it all most certainly has, I am still moved to say that my honoured colleagues, in this their common underlying conception, have to my mind all “missed the mark and come short of the glory of God.” They have not seized nor expressed the complete Ideal of the Reason. I agree with them that this Ideal is the sole measure and the certain sign