CH. II.] ANTIIROFOMOEPEIG IREISM. 40B 



crime and suffcrirg may infleed "be deFstini^d eventnany 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. Juiit 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 tenoficent 

 design, then discord and unfitness 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 ovil and the good.^ From the Jotuns and Vritras of 



* " OvK ipa. irdvToov ye aXriov rS dyaOoi', o\xA rwv fiiv <3 i'/^vToou aXriov, tZv 

 l\ KaKwv dvaiTiov. OvU" dpa 6 ©f^y, ETrtiS'' dyjOus, irduTuv &u it-q aXrios, ws ol 

 noWol XiyovTiv, dW' 6\iywv fxtv tois avOpwTrois atTWS, iri>K\wv 66 dvairios' 

 noKv ydp iXo-rrco rdyada. twv Kanwv yl,uiv Kai twv niv iyaGwv ovSefa AWou 

 tlr tar fov, rwv Se Kanwv aW' S.rra Se? Qr\Tf\v to. atria, dW' ov rov @e6v." Plato, 

 Republic, ii. 18 (Bekker). Ho goes on to refute the Homeric concei^tion oi 

 the two j;ivs, Iliad, xxiv. 6G0. Sse also Aristotle, Mctap/iysica, A. p. 984. 

 b. 17 ; and compare tlie views of James Jlill, in J. S. ilill's AutoUography^ 

 p. 40. For those who may wish to revive tho ilanichreau doctrine, an excel- 

 lent T'oint of (K'parture has been afforded by Mr. Jlartinean, in his suggestion 

 that the primary qualities of matter constitute a " datura objective to God," 

 irho, "in shaping the orbits out of immensity, and determining seasons oat 



