seraphita-第22节

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　a　great

human　genius；who　shall　say　where　the　greater　reason　lies？　Is　it　with

the　savage；　free　in　the　desert；　clothed　in　his　nudity；　listening　to

the　sun；　talking　to　the　sea；　sublime　and　always　true　in　his　deeds

whatever　they　may　be；　or　shall　we　find　it　in　civilized　man；　who

derives　his　chief　enjoyments　through　lies；　who　wrings　Nature　and　all

her　resources　to　put　a　musket　on　his　shoulder；　who　employs　his

intellect　to　hasten　the　hour　of　his　death　and　to　create　diseases　out

of　pleasures？　When　the　rake　of　pestilence　and　the　ploughshare　of　war

and　the　demon　of　desolation　have　passed　over　a　corner　of　the　globe　and

obliterated　all　things；　who　will　be　found　to　have　the　greater　

reason；the　Nubian　savage　or　the　patrician　of　Thebes？　Your　doubts

descend　the　scale；　they　go　from　heights　to　depths；　they　embrace　all；

the　end　as　well　as　the　means。



〃But　if　the　physical　world　seems　inexplicable；　the　moral　world

presents　still　stronger　arguments　against　God。　Where；　then；　is

progress？　If　all　things　are　indeed　moving　toward　perfection　why　do　we

die　young？　why　do　not　nations　perpetuate　themselves？　The　world　having

issued　from　God　and　being　contained　in　God　can　it　be　stationary？　Do　we

live　once；　or　do　we　live　always？　If　we　live　once；　hurried　onward　by

the　march　of　the　Great…Whole；　a　knowledge　of　which　has　not　been　given

to　us；　let　us　act　as　we　please。　If　we　are　eternal；　let　things　take

their　course。　Is　the　created　being　guilty　if　he　exists　at　the　instant

of　the　transitions？　If　he　sins　at　the　moment　of　a　great　transformation

will　he　be　punished　for　it　after　being　its　victim？　What　becomes　of　the

Divine　goodness　if　we　are　not　transferred　to　the　regions　of　the　blest

should　any　such　exist？　What　becomes　of　God's　prescience　if　He　is

ignorant　of　the　results　of　the　trials　to　which　He　subjects　us？　What　is

this　alternative　offered　to　man　by　all　religions；either　to　boil　in

some　eternal　cauldron　or　to　walk　in　white　robes；　a　palm　in　his　hand

and　a　halo　round