按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
perpetual cohesion with His work。 God； constrained to live eternally
united to His creation is held down to His first position as workman。
Can you conceive of a God who shall be neither independent of nor
dependent on His work？ Could He destroy that work without challenging
Himself？ Ask yourself； and decide！ Whether He destroys it some day； or
whether He never destroys it； either way is fatal to the attributes
without which God cannot exist。 Is the world an experiment？ is it a
perishable form to which destruction must come？ If it is； is not God
inconsistent and impotent？ inconsistent； because He ought to have seen
the result before the attempt；moreover why should He delay to
destroy that which He is to destroy？impotent； for how else could He
have created an imperfect man？
〃If an imperfect creation contradicts the faculties which man
attributes to God we are forced back upon the question； Is creation
perfect？ The idea is in harmony with that of a God supremely
intelligent who could make no mistakes； but then； what means the
degradation of His work； and its regeneration？ Moreover； a perfect
world is； necessarily； indestructible； its forms would not perish； it
could neither advance nor recede； it would revolve in the everlasting
circumference from which it would never issue。 In that case God would
be dependent on His work； it would be co…eternal with Him； and so we
fall back into one of the propositions most antagonistic to God。 If
the world is imperfect； it can progress； if perfect； it is stationary。
On the other hand； if it be impossible to admit of a progressive God
ignorant through a past eternity of the results of His creative work；
can there be a stationary God？ would not that imply the triumph of
Matter？ would it not be the greatest of all negations？ Under the first
hypothesis God perishes through weakness； under the second through the
Force of his inertia。
〃Therefore； to all sincere minds the supposition that Matter； in the
conception and execution of the worlds； is contemporaneous with God；
is to deny God。 Forced to choose； in order to govern the nations；
between the two alternatives of the problem； whole generations have
preferred this solution of it。 Hence the doctrine of the two
principles of Magianism； brought from Asia and adopted in Europe under
the form of Satan warring with the Eternal Father。 But this religious
formula and the innumerable aspects of divinity that have sprung from
it are surely crimes against the Majesty Divine。 What other term can
we apply to the belief which sets up as a rival to God a
personification of Evil； striving eternally against the Omnipotent
Mind without the possibility of ultimate triumph？ Your statics declare
that two Forces thus pitted against each other are reciprocally
rendered null。
〃Do you turn back； therefore； to the other side of the problem； and
say that God pre…existed； original； alone？
〃I will not go over the preceding arguments （which here return in full
force） as to the severance of Eternity into two parts； nor the
questions raised by the progression or the immobility of the worlds；
let us look only at the difficulties inherent to this second theory。
If God pre…existed alone； the world must have emanated from Him；
Matter was therefore drawn from His essence； consequently Matter in
itself is non…existent； all forms are veils to cover the Divine
Spirit。 If this be so； the World is Eternal； and also it must be God。
Is not this proposition even more fatal than the former to the
attributes conferred on God by human reason？ How can the actual
condition of Matter be explained if we suppose it to issue from the
bosom of God and to be ever united with Him？ Is it possible to believe
that the All…Powerful； supremely good in His essence and in His
faculties； has engendered things dissimilar to Himself。 Must He not in
all things and through all things be like unto Himself？ Can there be
in God certain evil parts of which at some future day he may rid
Himself？a conjecture less offensive and absurd than terrible； for
the reason that it drags back into Him the two principles which the
preceding theory proved to be inadmissible。 God must be ONE； He cannot
be divided without renouncing the most important condition of His
existence。 It is therefore impossible to admit of a fraction of God
which yet is not God。 This hypothesis seemed so criminal to the Roman
Church that she has made the omnipresence of God in the least
particles of the Eucharist an article of faith。
〃But how then can we imagine an omnipotent mind which does not
triumph？ How associate it unless in triumph with Nature？ But Nature is
not triumphant； she seeks； combines； remodels； dies； and is born
again； she is even more convulsed when creating than when all was
fusion； Nature suffers； groans； is ignorant； degenerates； does evil；
deceives herself； annihilates herself； disappears； and begins again。
If God is associated with Nature； how can we explain the inoperative
indifference of the divine principle？ Wherefore death？ How came it
that Evil； king of the earth； was born of a God supremely good in His
essence and in His faculties； who can produce nothing that is not made
in His own image？
〃But if； from this relentless conclusion which leads at once to
absurdity； we pass to details； what end are we to assign to the world？
If all is God； all is reciprocally cause and effect； all is ONE as God
is ONE； and we can perceive neither points of likeness nor points of
difference。 Can the real end be a rotation of Matter which subtilizes
and disappears？ In whatever sense it were done； would not this
mechanical trick of Matter issuing from God and returning to God seem
a sort of child's play？ Why should God make himself gross with Matter？
Under which form is he most God？ Which has the ascendant； Matter or
Spirit； when neither can in any way do wrong？ Who can comprehend the
Deity engaged in this perpetual business； by which he divides Himself
into two Natures； one of which knows nothing； while the other knows
all？ Can you conceive of God amusing Himself in the form of man；
laughing at His own efforts； dying Friday； to be born again Sunday；
and continuing this play from age to age； knowing the end from all
eternity； and telling nothing to Himself； the Creature； of what He the
Creator； does？ The God of the preceding hypothesis； a God so nugatory
by the very power of His inertia； seems the more possible of the two
if we are compelled to choose between the impossibilities with which
this God； so dull a jester； fusillades Himself when two sections of
humanity argue face to face； weapons in hand。
〃However absurd this outcome of the second problem may seem； it was
adopted by half the human race in the sunny lands where smiling
mythologies were created。 Those amorous nations were consistent； with
them all was God； even Fear and its dastardy； even crime and its
bacchanals。 If we accept pantheism；the religion of many