is such that it does not seem worth while to call it a separate
discipline.

Before leaving this subject there is one more point upon which I should
touch, if only to obviate a possible misunderstanding.

We find in Professor Cornelius's clear little book, "An Introduction to
Philosophy" (Leipzig, 1903; it has unhappily not yet been translated
into English), that metaphysics is repudiated altogether, and
epistemology is set in its place. But this rejection of metaphysics
does not necessarily imply the denial of the value of such an analysis
of our experience as I have in this work called metaphysical.
Metaphysics is taken to mean, not an analysis of experience, but a
groping behind the veil of phenomena for some reality not given in
experience. In other words, what Professor Cornelius condemns is what
many of the rest of us also condemn under another name. What he calls
metaphysics, we call bad metaphysics; and what he calls epistemology,
we call metaphysics. The dispute is really a dispute touching the
proper name to apply to reflective analysis of a certain kind.

As it is the fashion in certain quarters to abuse metaphysics, I set
the reader on his guard. Some kinds of metaphysics certainly ought to
be repudiated under whatever name they may be presented to us.




CHAPTER XX

THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION