is no
longer accredited. When one looks closely at the stream and tendency of
thought, one sees a growing alliance and kinship between religion and
poetry or art. There is, as we know, a dogmatic, precise, severe,
logical side of theology, by which creeds are constructed, religious
tests imposed, and belief made a matter of legal compulsion. There is
also a sentimental, ideal, imaginative side that resists definition,
that refuses dogmatic prescription, and seeks only to satisfy spiritual
needs and emotions. Metaphysics may no doubt take a part in the dogmatic
or doctrinal treatment, but it must qualify itself by biblical study,
and become altogether theology. In the other aspect, metaphysics, as I
conceive it, is unavailing; the poet is the proper medium for keeping up
the emotional side, under all transformations of doctrinal belief. But
as conceived by others, metaphysics is philosophy and poetry in one, to
which I can never agree. The combination of the two, as hitherto
exhibited, has been made at the expense of both. The leading terms of
philosophy--reason, spirit, soul, the ideal, the infinite, the absolute,
phenomenal truth, being, consciousness--are lubricated with emotion, and
thrown together in ways that defy the understanding. The unintelligible,
which ought to be the shame of philosophy, is made its glory.

These remarks prepare for the conclusion that I arrive at as to the
scope of metaphysics with reference to the higher questions. That it has
bearings upon these questions I allow; and those bearings are
legitimately within the range of metaphysical debates. But I make a wide
distinction between metaphysical discussion and theological discussion;
and do not consider that they can be combined to advantage. In the great
latitude of free inquiry in the present day, theology is freely
canvassed, and societies might be properly devoted to that express
object; but I cannot see any benefit that would arise by a philosophical
society undertaking, in addition to its own province, to raise the
questions belonging to theology. I am well aware that there is one
society of very distinguished persons in the metropolis, calling itself
metaphysical, that freely ventures upon the perilous seas of theological
debate.[14] No doubt good comes from any exercise of the liberty of
discussion, so long restrained in this region; yet, I can hardly suppose
that purely metaphysical, studies can thrive in such a connection. Many
of t