CH. ii.] ANTHROPOMORPHIC THEISM. 405 



crime and suffering may indeed &quot;be destined eventually to 

 disappear, their prevalence throughout the recorded past has 

 none the less been ever the stumbling-block and opprobrium 

 of all anthropomorphic theories of the universe. Just so 

 far as the correspondence between the organism and its 

 environment is complete, does the teleological hypothesis find 

 apparent confirmation. Just so far as the correspondence is 

 incomplete, does it meet with patent contradiction. If har 

 mony and fitness are to be cited as proofs of beneficent 

 design, then discord and un fitness must equally be kept in 

 view as evidences of less admirable contrivance. A scheme 

 which permits thousands of generations to live and die in 

 wretchedness, cannot, merely by providing for the well-being 

 of later ages, be absolved from the alternative charge of awk 

 wardness or malevolence. If there exist a personal Creator 

 of the universe who is infinitely intelligent and powerful, 

 he cannot be infinitely good : if, on the other hand, he be 

 infinite in goodness, then he must be lamentably finite in 

 power or in intelligence. By this two-edged difficulty, Theo 

 logy has ever been foiled. Vainly striving to elude the 

 dilemma, she has at times sought refuge in optimism ; 

 alleging the beneficent results of suffering and the evan 

 escent character of evil, as if to prove that suffering and 

 evil do not really exist. Usually, however, she has taken 

 the opposite course, postulating distinct supernatural sources 

 for the evil and the good. 1 From the Jotuns and Vritras of 



Spa VO.VTUIV yt atriov r5 SyaQov, &amp;lt;?X\ek rcDr fj.lv J5 fyttvrwv aXnov, rSav 

 dvatrtov. Ou5* &pa 6 e^y, eVetS?? eryaflos, irdvruv G.V eft/ ai T/oj, a&amp;gt;$ ot 

 iroXAoi \fyovffiy t aAA* d\iyuv (JLtv TO?S &.v6pctiirots afxtos, TroAAw* 8e dvaiTios 

 roAu *y^p eAarra) Ttfyaflci Teoy Kanuv ij/^uv Kal TUV fj\v dyaGdav oi&amp;gt;5eVa aAAof 

 tlriareov, roav 5e K.O.K&V &\\* &rra Sei ^VjTelv rd afr/o, dAA. ou roy 0e&amp;lt;{v.&quot; Plato, 

 Republic, ii. 18 (Bekker). He goes on to refute the Homeric conception of 

 the two jars, Iliad, xxiv. 660. See also Aristotle, Metaphysica, A. p. 984. 

 b. 17 ; and compare the views of James Mill, in J. S. Mill s Autobiography, 

 p. 40. For those who may wish to revive the Manichrean doctrine, an excel 

 lent point of departure has been afforded by Mr. Martineau, in his suggestion 

 that the primary qualities of matter constitute a &quot; datum objective to God,&quot; 

 trho, &quot; in shaping the orbits oat of immensity, and determining seasons out 



