ification of the nature of religion. In his "First Principles"
he appears to be a true scholar of the English and Scotch schools of
philosophy, from which he takes his start in conscious and express
opposition to the German modes of speculation, and begins with an empiric
comparison of all actual contrasts existing in the world and in human life.
He follows the axiom that a particle of truth lies at the basis of every
error, and that each contrast becomes a contrast only by the fact that the
two poles of the contrast have something in common. Now, in comparing with
one another all contrasts between religion and science, and all forms of
religiousness and irreligiousness, from fetishism up to monotheism,
pantheism, and atheism, all imaginable cosmogonies, he finds, as the last
truth common to all, and therefore {197} alone absolutely certain, the
_absolute indiscernibleness of the final cause of all things_. On page 44
he says, that religions diametrically opposed in their overt dogmas, are
yet perfectly at one in the tacit conviction that there is a problem to be
solved, that the existence of the world with all it contains is a mystery
ever pressing for interpretation; and on page 45, that the omnipresence of
something which passes comprehension, is that which remains unquestionable.
And on page 46 he concludes: "If Religion and Science are to be reconciled,
the basis of reconciliation must be this deepest, widest, and most certain
of all facts--that the Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly
inscrutable." The acknowledgment of this fact is religiousness; the
contrary of it is irreligiousness and anthropomorphistic arrogance, even if
it appears in the name of religiousness. "Volumes might be written upon the
impiety of the pious" (p. 110).

A comparison of the two philosophers is interesting.

In one direction, Lange does more justice to the religious need than
Spencer does. While he sees in religion the metaphorical realization of the
needs of the heart, of a "creation of a home of the spirit," he gives to
the heart full play to satisfy its need, and to create and arrange for
itself a spiritual home entirely according to its need. He especially
acknowledges repeatedly the need of the heart for _atonement_, and
vigorously defends this need and its satisfaction against Liberal
Theologians (Reformtheologen), like Heinrich Lang; he also stands, as we
see, in satisfactory contrast to Wilhelm Bleek. Without reser