The  time  has  now  come  for  this  attempt.    Who  says

1  Above,  p.  465.
CONCLUSIONS  611

^  hypothesis '  renounces  the  amhition  to  be  coercive  in  his
arguments.  The  most  I  can  do  is,  accordingly,  to  offer
something  that  may  fit  the  facts  so  easily  that  your  scien-
tific logic  will  find  no  plausible  pretext  for  vetoing  your
impulse  to  welcome  it  as  true.
The  ^  more/  as  we  called  it,  and  the  meaning  of  our
^  union '  with  it,  form  the  nucleus  of  our  inquiry.  Into
what  definite  description  can  these  words  be  translated,
and  for  what  definite  facts  do  they  stand?  It  would
never  do  for  us  to  place  ourselves  offhand  at  the  posi-
tion of  a  particular  theology,  the  Christian  theology,  for
example,  and  proceed  immediately  to  define  the  ^  more '
as  Jehovah,  and  the  '  union '  as  his  imputation  to  us  of
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  That  would  be  unfair  to
other  religions,  and,  from  our  present  standpoint  at  least,
would  be  an  over-belief.
