IfearImayhavemadealongerexcursusthanwasnecessary，andthatfewerwordswouldhavedispelledtheuneasinesswhichmayhavearisenamongsomeofyouasIannouncedmypathologicalprogramme。Atanyrateyoumustallbereadynowtojudgethereligiouslifebyitsresultsexclusively，andIshallassumethatthebugabooofmorbidoriginwillscandalizeyourpietynomore。
Still，youmayaskme，ifitsresultsaretobethegroundofourfinalspiritualestimateofareligiousphenomenon，whythreatenusatallwithsomuchexistentialstudyofitsconditions？Whynotsimplyleavepathologicalquestionsout？
TothisIreplyintwoways。First，Isay，irrepressiblecuriosityimperiouslyleadsoneon；andIsay，secondly，thatitalwaysleadstoabetterunderstandingofathing’ssignificancetoconsideritsexaggerationsandperversionsitsequivalentsandsubstitutesandnearestrelativeselsewhere。Notthatwemaytherebyswampthethinginthewholesalecondemnationwhichwepassonitsinferiorcongeners，butratherthatwemaybycontrastascertainthemorepreciselyinwhatitsmeritsconsist，bylearningatthesametimetowhatparticulardangersofcorruptionitmayalsobeexposed。
Insaneconditionshavethisadvantage，thattheyisolatespecialfactorsofthementallife，andenableustoinspectthemunmaskedbytheirmoreusualsurroundings。Theyplaythepartinmentalanatomywhichthescalpelandthemicroscopeplayintheanatomyofthebody。Tounderstandathingrightlyweneedtoseeitbothoutofitsenvironmentandinit，andtohaveacquaintancewiththewholerangeofitsvariations。Thestudyofhallucinationshasinthiswaybeenforpsychologiststhekeytotheircomprehensionofnormalsensation，thatofillusionshasbeenthekeytotherightcomprehensionofperception。Morbidimpulsesandimperativeconceptions，“fixedideas。”socalled，havethrownafloodoflightonthepsychologyofthenormalwill；andobsessionsanddelusionshaveperformedthesameserviceforthatofthenormalfacultyofbelief。
Similarly，thenatureofgeniushasbeenilluminatedbytheattempts，ofwhichIalreadymademention，toclassitwithpsychopathicalphenomena。Borderlandinsanity，crankiness，insanetemperament，lossofmentalbalance，psychopathicdegeneration(touseafewofthemanysynonymsbywhichithasbeencalled)，hascertainpeculiaritiesandliabilitieswhich，whencombinedwithasuperiorqualityofintellectinanindividual，makeitmoreprobablethathewillmakehismarkandaffecthisage，thanifhistemperamentwerelessneurotic。
Thereisofcoursenospecialaffinitybetweencrankinessassuchandsuperiorintellect，[7]formostpsychopathshavefeebleintellects，andsuperiorintellectsmorecommonlyhavenormalnervoussystems。Butthepsychopathictemperament，whateverbetheintellectwithwhichitfindsitselfpaired，oftenbringswithitardorandexcitabilityofcharacter。Thecrankypersonhasextraordinaryemotionalsusceptibility。Heisliabletofixedideasandobsessions。Hisconceptionstendtopassimmediatelyintobeliefandaction；andwhenhegetsanewidea，hehasnoresttillheproclaimsit，orinsomeway“worksitoff。”“WhatshallIthinkofit？”acommonpersonsaystohimselfaboutavexedquestion；butina“cranky“mind“WhatmustIdoaboutit？”istheformthequestiontendstotake。Intheautobiographyofthathigh-souledwoman，Mrs。AnnieBesant，I
readthefollowingpassage：“Plentyofpeoplewishwelltoanygoodcause，butveryfewcaretoexertthemselvestohelpit，andstillfewerwillriskanythinginitssupport。’Someoneoughttodoit，butwhyshouldI？’istheeverreechoedphraseofweak-kneedamiability。’Someoneoughttodoit，sowhynotI？’isthecryofsomeearnestservantofman，eagerlyforwardspringingtofacesomeperilousduty。Betweenthesetwosentencesliewholecenturiesofmoralevolution。”Trueenough！andbetweenthesetwosentencesliealsothedifferentdestiniesoftheordinarysluggardandthepsychopathicman。Thus，whenasuperiorintellectandapsychopathictemperamentcoalesce——asintheendlesspermutationsandcombinationsofhumanfaculty，theyareboundtocoalesceoftenenough——inthesameindividual，wehavethebestpossibleconditionforthekindofeffectivegeniusthatgetsintothe<25>biographicaldictionaries。Suchmendonotremainmerecriticsandunderstanderswiththeirintellect。
Theirideaspossessthem，theyinflictthem，forbetterorworse，upontheircompanionsortheirage。ItistheywhogetcountedwhenMessrs。Lombroso，Nisbet，andothersinvokestatisticstodefendtheirparadox。
[7]Superiorintellect，asProfessorBainhasadmirablyshown，seemstoconsistinnothingsomuchasinalargedevelopmentofthefacultyofassociationbysimilarity。
Topassnowtoreligiousphenomena，takethemelancholywhich，asweshallsee，constitutesanessentialmomentineverycompletereligiousevolution。Takethehappinesswhichachievedreligiousbeliefconfers。Takethetrancelikestatesofinsightintotruthwhichallreligiousmysticsreport。[8]Theseareeachandallofthemspecialcasesofkindsofhumanexperienceofmuchwiderscope。Religiousmelancholy，whateverpeculiaritiesitmayhavequareligious，isatanyratemelancholy。Religioushappinessishappiness。Religioustranceistrance。Andthemomentwerenouncetheabsurdnotionthatathingisexplodedawayassoonasitisclassedwithothers，oritsoriginisshown；themomentweagreetostandbyexperimentalresultsandinnerquality，injudgingofvalues——whodoesnotseethatwearelikelytoascertainthedistinctivesignificanceofreligiousmelancholyandhappiness，orofreligioustrances，farbetterbycomparingthemasconscientiouslyaswecanwithothervarietiesofmelancholy，happiness，andtrance，thanbyrefusingtoconsidertheirplaceinanymoregeneralseries，andtreatingthemasiftheywereoutsideofnature’sorderaltogether？
Ihopethatthecourseoftheselectureswillconfirmusinthissupposition。Asregardsthepsychopathicoriginofsomanyreligiousphenomena，thatwouldnotbeintheleastsurprisingordisconcerting，evenweresuchphenomenacertifiedfromonhightobethemostpreciousofhumanexperiences。Nooneorganismcanpossiblyyieldtoitsownerthewholebodyoftruth。Fewofusarenotinsomewayinfirm，orevendiseased；andourveryinfirmitieshelpusunexpectedly。Inthepsychopathictemperamentwehavetheemotionalitywhichisthesinequanonofmoralperception；wehavetheintensityandtendencytoemphasiswhicharetheessenceofpracticalmoralvigor；andwehavetheloveofmetaphysicsandmysticismwhichcarryone’sinterestsbeyondthesurfaceofthesensibleworld。What，then，ismorenaturalthanthatthistemperamentshouldintroduceonetoregionsofreligioustruth，tocornersoftheuniverse，whichyourrobustPhilistinetypeofnervoussystem，foreverofferingitsbicepstobefelt，thumpingitsbreast，andthankingHeaventhatithasn’tasinglemorbidfiberinitscomposition，wouldbesuretohideforeverfromitsself-satisfiedpossessors？
[8]ImayrefertoacriticismoftheinsanitytheoryofgeniusinthePsychologicalReview，ii。287(1895)。
Ifthereweresuchathingasinspirationfromahigherrealm，itmightwellbethattheneurotictemperamentwouldfurnishthechiefconditionoftherequisitereceptivity。Andhavingsaidthusmuch，IthinkthatImayletthematterofreligionandneuroticismdrop。
Themassofcollateralphenomena，morbidorhealthy，withwhichthevariousreligiousphenomenamustbecomparedinordertounderstandthembetter，formswhatintheslangofpedagogicsistermed“theapperceivingmass“bywhichwecomprehendthem。TheonlynoveltythatIcanimaginethiscourseoflecturestopossessliesinthebreadthoftheapperceivingmass。Imaysucceedindiscussingreligiousexperiencesinawidercontextthanhasbeenusualinuniversitycourses。
Mostbooksonthephilosophyofreligiontrytobeginwithaprecisedefinitionofwhatitsessenceconsistsof。Someofthesewould-bedefinitionsmaypossiblycomebeforeusinlaterportionsofthiscourse，andIshallnotbepedanticenoughtoenumerateanyofthemtoyounow。Meanwhiletheveryfactthattheyaresomanyandsodifferentfromoneanotherisenoughtoprovethattheword“religion“cannotstandforanysingleprincipleoressence，butisratheracollectivename。Thetheorizingmindtendsalwaystotheoversimplificationofitsmaterials。Thisistherootofallthatabsolutismandone-sideddogmatismbywhichbothphilosophyandreligionhavebeeninfested。Letusnotfallimmediatelyintoaone-sidedviewofoursubject，butletusratheradmitfreelyattheoutsetthatwemayverylikelyfindnooneessence，butmanycharacterswhichmayalternatelybeequallyimportanttoreligion。Ifweshouldinquirefortheessenceof“government。”forexample，onemanmighttellusitwasauthority，anothersubmission，anotherpolice，anotheranarmy，anotheranassembly，anotherasystemoflaws；yetallthewhileitwouldbetruethatnoconcretegovernmentcanexistwithoutallthesethings，oneofwhichismoreimportantatonemomentandothersatanother。Themanwhoknowsgovernmentsmostcompletelyishewhotroubleshimselfleastaboutadefinitionwhichshallgivetheiressence。
Enjoyinganintimateacquaintancewithalltheirparticularitiesinturn，hewouldnaturallyregardanabstractconceptioninwhichthesewereunifiedasathingmoremisleadingthanenlightening。Andwhymaynotreligionbeaconceptionequallycomplex？[9]
[9]Icandonobetterherethanrefermyreaderstotheextendedandadmirableremarksonthefutilityofallthesedefinitionsofreligion，inanarticlebyProfessorLeuba，publishedintheMonistforJanuary，1901，aftermyowntextwaswritten。
Consideralsothe“religioussentiment“whichweseereferredtoinsomanybooks，asifitwereasinglesortofmentalentity。
Inthepsychologiesandinthephilosophiesofreligion，wefindtheauthorsattemptingtospecifyjustwhatentityitis。Onemanalliesittothefeelingofdependence；onemakesitaderivativefromfear；othersconnectitwiththesexuallife；
othersstillidentifyitwiththefeelingoftheinfinite；andsoon。Suchdifferentwaysofconceivingitoughtofthemselvestoarousedoubtastowhetheritpossiblycanbeonespecificthing；
andthemomentwearewillingtotreattheterm“religioussentiment“asacollectivenameforthemanysentimentswhichreligiousobjectsmayarouseinalternation，weseethatitprobablycontainsnothingwhateverofapsychologicallyspecificnature。Thereisreligiousfear，religiouslove，religiousawe，religiousjoy，andsoforth。Butreligiousloveisonlyman’snaturalemotionoflovedirectedtoareligiousobject；religiousfearisonlytheordinaryfearofcommerce，sotospeak，thecommonquakingofthehumanbreast，insofarasthenotionofdivineretributionmayarouseit；religiousaweisthesameorganicthrillwhichwefeelinaforestattwilight，orinamountaingorge；onlythistimeitcomesoverusatthethoughtofoursupernaturalrelations；andsimilarlyofallthevarioussentimentswhichmaybecalledintoplayinthelivesofreligiouspersons。Asconcretestatesofmind，madeupofafeelingPLUSaspecificsortofobject，religiousemotionsofcoursearepsychicentitiesdistinguishablefromotherconcreteemotions；butthereisnogroundforassumingasimpleabstract“religiousemotion“toexistasadistinctelementarymentalaffectionbyitself，presentineveryreligiousexperiencewithoutexception。
Astherethusseemstobenooneelementaryreligiousemotion，butonlyacommonstorehouseofemotionsuponwhichreligiousobjectsmaydraw，sotheremightconceivablyalsoprovetohenoonespecificandessentialkindofreligiousobject，andnoonespecificandessentialkindofreligiousact。
Thefieldofreligionbeingaswideasthis，itismanifestlyimpossiblethatIshouldpretendtocoverit。Mylecturesmustbelimitedtoafractionofthesubject。And，althoughitwouldindeedbefoolishtosetupanabstractdefinitionofreligion’sessence，andthenproceedtodefendthatdefinitionagainstallcomers，yetthisneednotpreventmefromtakingmyownnarrowviewofwhatreligionshallconsistinFORTHEPURPOSEOFTHESE
LECTURES，or，outofthemanymeaningsoftheword，fromchoosingtheonemeaninginwhichIwishtointerestyouparticularly，andproclaimingarbitrarilythatwhenIsay“religion“ImeanTHAT。
This，infact，iswhatImustdo，andIwillnowpreliminarilyseektomarkoutthefieldIchoose。
Onewaytomarkitouteasilyistosaywhataspectsofthesubjectweleaveout。Attheoutsetwearestruckbyonegreatpartitionwhichdividesthereligiousfield。Ontheonesideofitliesinstitutional，ontheotherpersonalreligion。AsM。P。
Sabatiersays，onebranchofreligionkeepsthedivinity，anotherkeepsmanmostinview。Worshipandsacrifice，proceduresforworkingonthedispositionsofthedeity，theologyandceremonyandecclesiasticalorganization，aretheessentialsofreligionintheinstitutionalbranch。Werewetolimitourviewtoit，weshouldhavetodefinereligionasanexternalart，theartofwinningthefavorofthegods。Inthemorepersonalbranchofreligionitisonthecontrarytheinnerdispositionsofmanhimselfwhichformthecenterofinterest，hisconscience，hisdeserts，hishelplessness，hisincompleteness。AndalthoughthefavoroftheGod，asforfeitedorgained，isstillanessentialfeatureofthestory，andtheologyplaysavitalparttherein，yettheactstowhichthissortofreligionpromptsarepersonalnotritualacts，theindividualtransactsthebusinessbyhimselfalone，andtheecclesiasticalorganization，withitspriestsandsacramentsandothergo-betweens，sinkstoanaltogethersecondaryplace。Therelationgoesdirectfromhearttoheart，fromsoultosoul，betweenmanandhismaker。
NowintheselecturesIproposetoignoretheinstitutionalbranchentirely，tosaynothingoftheecclesiasticalorganization，toconsideraslittleaspossiblethesystematictheologyandtheideasaboutthegodsthemselves，andtoconfinemyselfasfarasIcantopersonalreligionpureandsimple。Tosomeofyoupersonalreligion，thusnakedlyconsidered，willnodoubtseemtooincompleteathingtowearthegeneralname。“Itisapartofreligion。”youwillsay，“butonlyitsunorganizedrudiment；ifwearetonameitbyitself，wehadbettercallitman’sconscienceormoralitythanhisreligion。Thename’religion’shouldbereservedforthefullyorganizedsystemoffeeling，thought，andinstitution，fortheChurch，inshort，ofwhichthispersonalreligion，socalled，isbutafractionalelement。”
Butifyousaythis，itwillonlyshowthemoreplainlyhowmuchthequestionofdefinitiontendstobecomeadisputeaboutnames。
