accept both immanence and personality, even though we cannot reconcile them."[C] This, however, from the standpoint of modern philosophers and orthodox theologians who identify or confound the immanent power absolutely as God himself--and the only Deity with whom we have to deal--is a somewhat forcing of the human understanding--a case of "the heart breathing defiance to the intellect." "Not that the spirit cannot do this * * * but that doing it does not amount to philosophy."[D] I doubt if it amounts to religion either: for religion no less than philosophy requires harmony in things; and is necessarily a concern of the intellect as well as of the heart. Its conceptions must appeal to the understanding as well as to the emotions. As remarked by Mr. Fiske: "Our reason demands that there shall be a reasonableness in the constitution of things. This demand is a fact of our psychical [spiritual] nature as positive and irrepressible as our aceptance of geometrical axioms, and our rejection of whatever controverts such axioms. No ingenuity of argument can bring us to believe that the infinite Sustainer of the Universe will put us to permanent intellectual confusion." That is in regard of spiritual or religious matters; any more than in other matters. "Our belief," he continues, "in what we call the evidences of our senses is less strong than our faith that in the orderly sequence of events there is a meaning which our minds could fathom were they only vast enough."[E] [Footnote A: Fiske, "Studies in Religion," p. 104; Works, Vol. IX. The parts within single quotation marks are from Spencer, and quoted by Fiske.] [Footnote B: Fiske Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. IV, p. 227. Also Professor Le Conte says: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality." ("Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," p. 337.)] [Footnote C: "Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," 1902, p. 337. The context is also worthy of being brought into view: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality, and yet we must accept both, because we are irresistibly led to each of these by different lines of thought. Science, following one line of thought, uncorrected by a wider philosophy, is naturally led toward the one extreme of pantheistic immanence; the devout worshiper, following the wants of his religious nature, is naturally led toward the other extreme of anthropomorphic personality. The only rational view is to accept both immanence and personality, even though we can not clearly reconcile them, i. e., immanence without pantheism, and personality without anthropomorphism."] [Footnote D: Professor Howison in "Conception of God"--Introduction, p. 35.