{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8654/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8654","id":"gutenberg_8654","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8654","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Novels","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought","Good and evil","Religion"],"text":"Produced by David Deley\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE FALLEN STAR, or, THE HISTORY OF A FALSE RELIGION\n\nby E. L. Bulwer\n\n\nand,\n\nA DISSERTATION ON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL\n\nby Lord Brougham\n\n\n\n\nPUBLISHER\u2019S PREFACE\n\nRELIGION, says Noah Webster in his _American Dictionary of the English\nLanguage_, is derived from \u201cReligo, to bind anew;\u201d and, in this _History\nof a False Religion_, our author has shown how easily its votaries were\ninsnared, deceived, and mentally bound in a labyrinth of falsehood and\nerror, by a designing knave, who established a new religion and a new\norder of priesthood by imposing on their ignorance and credulity.\n\nThe history of the origin of one supernatural religion will, with slight\nalterations, serve to describe them all. Their claim to credence rests\non the exhibition of so-called miracles--that is, on a violation of\nthe laws of nature,--for, if religions were founded on the demonstrated\ntruths of science, there would be no mystery, no supernaturalism, no\nmiracles, no skepticism, no false religion. We would have only verified\ntruths and demonstrated facts for the basis of our belief. But this\nsimple foundation does not satisfy the unreasoning multitude. They\ndemand signs, portents, mysteries, wonders and miracles for their faith\nand the supply of prophets, knaves and impostors has always been found\nample to satisfy this abnormal demand of credulity.\n\nDesigning men, even at the present day, find little difficulty in\nestablishing new systems of faith and belief. Joseph Smith, who invented\nthe Mormon religion, had more followers and influence in this country\nat his death, than the Carpenter\u2019s Son obtained centuries ago from the\nunlettered inhabitants of Palestine; and yet Smith achieved his success\namong educated people in this so-called enlightened age, while Jesus\ntaught in an age of semi-barbarism and faith, when both Jews and Pagans\nasserted and believed that beasts, birds, reptiles and even fishes\nunderstood human language, were often gifted with human speech, and\nsometimes seemed to possess even more than ordinary human intelligence.\n\nThey taught that the serpent, using the language of sophistry, beguiled\nEve in Eden, who in turn corrupted Adam, her first and only husband. At\nthe baptism of Jesus by John in the river Jordan, the voice of a dove\nresounded in the heavens, saying, quite audibly and distinctly, \u201cThou\nart my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.\u201d Balaam disputed with\nhis patient beast of burden, on their celebrated journey in the land\nof Moab, and the ass proved wiser in the argument that ensued than the\ninspired prophet who bestrode him, The great fish Oannes left his\nnative element and taught philosophy to the Chaldeans on dry land.\nOne reputable woman, of Jewish lineage,--the mother of an interesting\nfamily--was changed to a pillar of salt in Sodom while another female of\ngreat notoriety known to fame as the celebrated \u201cWitch of Endor,\u201d raised\nSamuel from his grave in Ramah. Saint Peter found a shilling in the\nmouth of a fish which he caught in the Sea of Galilee, and this lucky\nincident enabled the impecunious apostle to pay the \u201ctribute money\u201d in\nCapernaum. Another famous Israelite,--so it is said,--broke the record\nof balloon ascensions in Judea, and ascended into heaven in a chariot of\nfire.\n\nIn an age of ignorance wonders abound, prodigies occur, and miracles\nbecome common, The untaught masses are easily deceived, and their\nunreasoning credulity enables them to proudly boast of their\nunquestioning faith. When their feelings are excited and their passions\naroused by professional evangelists, they even profess to believe that\nwhich they cannot comprehend; and, in the satirical language of Bulwer,\nthey endeavor to \u201c_assist their ignorance by the conjectures of their\nsuperstition_.\u201d\n\nAmong the multitudes of diverse and opposing religions which afflict\nmankind, it is self-evident that but one religion may justly claim the\ninspiration of truth, and it is equally evident to all reasoning minds\nthat that religion is the religion of kindness and humanity,--the\nreligion of noble thoughts and generous deeds,--which removes the\nenmities of race and creed, and \u201cmakes the whole world kin!\u201d And which,\nin its observance is blessed with sympathy, friendship, happiness and\nlove.\n\nThis religion needs no creed, no profession of faith, no incense, no\nprayer, no penance, no sacrifice. Its whole duty consists in comforting\nthe afflicted, assisting the unfortunate, protecting the helpless, and\nin honestly fulfilling our duties to our fellow mortals. In the language\nof Confucius, the ancient Chinese Sage, it is simply \u201cto behave to\nothers as I would require others to behave to me.\u201d\n\n\u201cDo unto others as you would they should do unto you,\u201d says Jesus; and\nin the Epistle of James, we are told that \u201cPure Religion and undefiled\nbefore God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in\ntheir affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.\u201d\n\nThe same benign and generous conduct is commended in even grander and\nnobler language in the lectures to the French Masonic Lodges: \u201cLove one\nanother, teach one another, help one another. That is all our doctrine,\nall our science, all our law.\u201d\n\nIt is believed that the learned dissertation of Lord Brougham on\nthe _Origin of Evil_, which is annexed to this work, will need no\ncommendation to ensure its careful perusal.\n\n                         PETER ECKLER.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE FALLEN STAR, or, THE HISTORY OF A FALSE RELIGION\n\nby E. L. Bulwer\n\n\n\n\nAN ALLEGORY OF THE STARS.\n\nAnd the Stars sat, each on his ruby throne, and watched with sleepless\neyes upon the world. It was the night ushering in the new year, a night\non which every star receives from the archangel that then visits the\nuniversal galaxy, its peculiar charge.\n\nThe destinies of men and empires are then portioned forth for the coming\nyear, and, unconsciously to ourselves, our fates become minioned to the\nstars.\n\nA hushed and solemn night is that in which the dark gates of time\nopen to receive the ghost of the dead year, and the young and radiant\nstranger rushes forth from the clouded chasms of eternity. On that\nnight, it is said that there are given to the spirits that we see not, a\nprivilege and a power; the dead are troubled in their forgotten graves,\nand men feast and laugh, while demon and angel are contending for their\ndoom.\n\nIt was night in heaven; all was unutterably silent, the music of the\nspheres had paused, and not a sound came from the angels of the stars;\nand they who sat upon those shining thrones were three thousand and ten,\neach resembling each.\n\nEternal youth clothed their radiant limbs with celestial beauty, and on\ntheir faces was written the dread of calm, that fearful stillness which\nfeels not, sympathizes not with the dooms over which it broods.\n\nWar, tempest, pestilence, the rise of empires, and their fall, they\nordain, they, compass, unexultant and uncompassionate. The fell and\nthrilling crimes that stalk abroad when the world sleeps--the parricide\nwith his stealthy step, and horrent brow, and lifted knife; the unwifed\nmother that glides out and looks behind, and behind, and shudders, and\ncasts her babe upon the river, and hears the wail, and pities not--the\nsplash, and does not tremble!\n\nThese the starred kings behold--to these they lead the unconscious step;\nbut the guilt blanches not their lustre, neither doth remorse wither\ntheir unwrinkled youth.\n\nEach star wore a kingly diadem; round the loins of each was a graven\nbelt, graven with many and mighty signs; and the foot of each was on a\nburning ball, and the right arm dropped over the knee as they bent down\nfrom their thrones; they moved not a limb or feature, save the finger\nof the right hand, which ever and anon moved slowly, pointing, and\nregulated the fates of men as the hand of the dial speaks the career of\ntime.\n\nOne only of the three thousand and ten wore not the same aspect as his\ncrowned brethren; a star, smaller than the rest, and less luminous. The\ncountenance of this star was not impressed with the awful calmness of\nthe others; but there were sullenness and discontent upon his mighty\nbrow.\n\nAnd this star said to himself--\u201cBehold, I am created less glorious\nthan my fellows, and the archangel apportions not to me the same lordly\ndestinies. Not for me are the dooms of kings and bards, the rulers of\nempires, or, yet nobler, the swayers and harmonists of souls. Sluggish\nare the spirits and base the lot of the men I am ordained to lead\nthrough a dull life to a fameless grave. And wherefore?--Is it mine own\nfault, or is it the fault which is not mine, that I was woven of beams\nless glorious than my brethren? Lo! when the archangel comes, I will\nbow not my crowned head to his decrees. I will speak, as the ancestral\nLucifer before me: _he_ rebelled because of his glory, _I_ because of\nmy obscurity; _he_ from the ambition of pride, and _I_ from its\ndiscontent.\u201d\n\nAnd while the star was thus communing with himself, the upward heavens\nwere parted as by a long river of light, and adown that stream swiftly,\nand without sound, sped the archangel visitor of the stars; his vast\nlimbs floated in the liquid lustre, and his outspread wings, each plume\nthe glory of a sun, bore him noiselessly along; but thick clouds veiled\nhis lustre from the eyes of mortals, and while above all was bathed in\nthe serenity of his splendor, tempest and storm broke below over the\nchildren of the earth:\n\n\u201cHe bowed the heavens and came down, and darkness was under his feet.\u201d\n\nAnd the stillness on the faces of the stars became yet more still, and\nthe awfulness was humbled into awe. Right above their thrones paused\nthe course of the archangel; and his wings stretched from east to west,\novershadowing with the shadow of light the immensity of space. Then\nforth in the shining stillness, rolled the dread music of his voice:\nand, fulfilling the heraldry of god, to each star he appointed the duty\nand the charge, and each star bowed his head yet lower as he heard the\nfiat, while his throne rocked and trembled at the majesty of the\nword. But at last, when each of the brighter stars had, in succession,\nreceived the mandate, and the viceroyalty over the nations of the earth,\nthe purple and diadems of kings--the archangel addressed the lesser star\nas he sat apart from his fellows.\n\n\u201cBehold,\u201d said the archangel, \u201cthe rude tribes of the north, the\nfishermen of the river that flows beneath, and the hunters of the\nforests, that darken the mountain-tops with verdure! these be thy\ncharge, and their destinies thy care. Nor deem thou, O star of the\nsullen beams, that thy duties are less glorious than the duties of thy\nbrethren; for the peasant is not less to thy master and mine than the\nmonarch; nor doth the doom of empires rest more upon the sovereign than\non the herd. The passions and the heart are the dominion of the stars--a\nmighty realm; nor less mighty beneath the hide that garbs the shepherd,\nthan the jewelled robes of eastern kings.\u201d\n\nThen the star lifted his pale front from his breast, and answered the\narchangel:\n\n\u201cLo!\u201d he said, \u201cages have past, and each year thou hast appointed me to\nthe same ignoble charge. Release me, I pray thee, from the duties that I\nscorn; or, if thou wilt that the lowlier race of men be my charge, give\nunto me the charge not of many, but of one, and suffer me to breathe\ninto him the desire that spurns the valleys of life, and ascends its\nsteeps. If the humble are given to me, let there be amongst them one\nwhom I may lead on the mission that shall abase the proud; for, behold,\nO Appointer of the Stars, as I have sat for uncounted years upon my\nsolitary throne, brooding over the things beneath, my spirit hath\ngathered wisdom from the changes that shift below. Looking upon the\ntribes of earth, I have seen how the multitude are swayed, and tracked\nthe steps that lead weakness into power; and fain would I be the ruler\nof one who, if abased, shall aspire to rule.\u201d\n\nAs a sudden cloud over the face of noon was the change on the brow of\nthe archangel.\n\n\u201cProud and melancholy star,\u201d said the herald, \u201cthy wish would war with\nthe courses of the invisible destiny, that, throned far above, sways\nand harmonizes all; the source from which the lesser rivers of fate are\neternally gushing through the heart of the universe of things. Thinkest\nthou that thy wisdom, of itself, can lead the peasant to become a king?\u201d\n\nAnd the crowned star gazed undauntedly on the face of the archangel, and\nanswered:\n\n\u201cYea!--grant me but one trial!\u201d\n\nEre the archangel could reply, the farthest centre of the heaven was\nrent as by a thunderbolt; and the divine herald covered his face with\nhis hands, and a voice low and sweet, and mild with the consciousness of\nunquestionable power, spoke forth to the repining star:\n\n\u201cThe time has arrived when thou mayest have thy wish. Below thee, upon\nyon solitary plain, sits a mortal, gloomy as thyself, who, born under\nthy influence, may be moulded to thy will.\u201d\n\nThe voice ceased, as the voice of a dream. Silence was over the seas of\nspace, and the archangel, once more borne aloft, slowly soared away into\nthe farther heaven, to promulgate the divine bidding to the stars of\nfar-distant worlds.\n\nBut the soul of the discontented star exulted within itself; and it\nsaid, \u201cI will call forth a king from the valley of the herdsmen, that\nshall trample on the kings subject to my fellows, and render the charge\nof the contemned star more glorious than the minions of its favored\nbrethren; thus shall I revenge neglect--thus shall I prove my claim\nhereafter to the heritage of the great of earth!\u201d\n\n\nAt that time, though the world had rolled on for ages, and the\npilgrimage of man had passed through various states of existence, which\nour dim traditionary knowledge has not preserved, yet the condition of\nour race in the northern hemisphere was then what _we_, in our imperfect\nlore, have conceived to be among the earliest.\n\n\n\n\nFORMING A NEW RELIGION.\n\nBy a rude and vast pile of stones, the masonry of arts forgotten, a\nlonely man sat at midnight, gazing upon the heavens. A storm had just\npassed from the earth--the clouds had rolled away, and the high stars\nlooked down upon the rapid waters of the Rhine; and no sound save the\nroar of the waves and the dripping of the rain from the mighty trees,\nwas heard around the ruined pile: the white sheep lay scattered on the\nplain, and slumber with them. He sat watching over the herd, lest the\nfoes of a neighboring tribe seized them unawares, and thus he communed\nwith himself:\n\n\u201cThe king sits upon his throne, and is honored by a warrior race, and\nthe warrior exults in the trophies he has won; the step of the huntsman\nis bold upon the mountain-top, and his name is sung at night round the\npine-fires, by the lips of the bard; and the bard himself hath honor in\nthe hail. But I, who belong not to the race of kings, and whose limbs\ncan bound not to the rapture of war, nor scale the eyries of the eagle\nand the haunts of the swift stag; whose hand cannot string the harp, and\nwhose voice is harsh in the song; _I_ have neither honor nor command,\nand men bow not the head as I pass along; yet do I feel within me the\nconsciousness of a great power that should rule my species--not obey.\nMy eye pierces the secret hearts of men--I see their thoughts ere their\nlips proclaim them; and I scorn, while I see, the weakness and the vices\nwhich I never shared. I laugh at the madness of the warrior--I mock\nwithin my soul at the tyranny of kings. Surely there is something in\nman\u2019s nature more fitted to command--more worthy of renoun, than the\nsinews of the arm, or the swiftness of the feet, or the accident of\nbirth!\u201d\n\nAs Morven, the son of Osslah, thus mused within himself, still looking\nat the heavens, the solitary man beheld a star suddenly shooting from\nits place, and speeding through the silent air, till it as suddenly\npaused right over the midnight river, and facing the inmate of the pile\nof stones.\n\nAs he gazed upon the star strange thoughts grew slowly over him. He\ndrank, as it were, from its solemn aspect, the spirit of a great design.\nA dark cloud rapidly passing over the earth, snatched the star from his\nsight; but left to his awakened mind the thoughts and the dim scheme\nthat had come to him as he gazed.\n\nWhen the sun arose one of his brethren relieved him of his charge over\nthe herd, and he went away, but not to his father\u2019s home. Musingly he\nplunged into the dark and leafless recesses of the winter forest; and\nshaped out of his wild thoughts, more palpably and clearly, the outline\nof his daring hope.\n\nWhile thus absorbed, he heard a great noise in the forest, and, fearful\nlest the hostile tribe of the Alrich might pass that way, he ascended\none of the loftiest pine-trees, to whose perpetual verdure the winter\nhad not denied the shelter he sought, and, concealed by its branches, he\nlooked anxiously forth in the direction whence the noise had proceed.\n\nAnd IT came--it came with a tramp and a crash, and a crushing tread upon\nthe crunched boughs and matted leaves that strewed the soil--it came--it\ncame, the monster that the world now holds no more--the mighty mammoth\nof the North!\n\nSlowly it moved in its huge strength along, and its burning eyes\nglittered through the gloomy shade: its jaws, falling apart, showed the\ngrinders with which it snapped asunder the young oaks of the forest;\nand the vast tusks, which, curved downward to the midst of its massive\nlimbs, glistened white and ghastly, curdling the blood of one destined\nhereafter to be the dreaded ruler of the men of that distant age.\n\nThe livid eyes of the monster fastened on the form of the herdsman,\neven amidst the thick darkness of the pine. It paused--it glared upon\nhim--its jaws opened, and a low deep sound, as of gathering thunder,\nseemed to the son of Osslah as the knell of a dreadful grave. But after\nglaring on him for some moments, it again, and calmly, pursued its\nterrible way, crashing the boughs as it marched along, till the last\nsound of its heavy tread died away upon his ear.\n\nEre yet, however, before Morven had summoned the courage to descend the\ntree, he saw the shining of arms through the bare branches of the wood,\nand presently a small hand of the hostile Alrich came into sight. He was\nperfectly hidden from them; and, listening as they passed him, he heard\none say to another:\n\n\u201cThe night covers all things; why attack them by day?\u201d\n\nAnd he who seemed the chief of the band, answered \u201cRight. To-night, when\nthey sleep in their city, we will upon them. Lo! they will be drenched\nin wine, and fall like sheep into our hands.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut where, O chief,\u201d said a third of the band, \u201cshall our men hide\nduring the day? for there are many hunters among the youth of the\nOestrich tribe, and they might see us in the forest unawares, and arm\ntheir race against our coming.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have prepared for that,\u201d answered the chief. \u201cIs not the dark\ncavern of Oderlin at hand? Will it not shelter us from the eyes of the\nvictims?\u201d\n\nThen the men laughed, and shouting, they went their way adown the\nforest.\n\nWhen they were gone Morven cautiously descended, and, striking into a\nbroad path, hastened to a vale that lay between the forest and the river\nin which was the city where the chief of his country dwelt.\n\nAs he passed by the warlike men, giants in that day, who thronged the\nstreets (if streets they might be called), their half garments parting\nfrom their huge limbs, the quiver at their backs, and the hunting spears\nin their hands, they laughed and shouted out, and, pointing to him,\ncried:\n\n\u201cMorven, the woman! Morven, the cripple! what dost thou among men?\u201d\n\nFor the son of Osslah was small in stature and of slender strength, and\nhis step had halted from his birth; but he passed through the warriors\nunheedingly.\n\nAt the outskirts of the city he came upon a tail pile, in which some old\nmen dwelt by themselves, and counseled the king when times of danger,\nor when the failure of the season, the famine, or the drought, perplexed\nthe ruler, and clouded the savage fronts of his warrior tribe.\n\nThey gave the counsels of experience, and when experience failed, they\ndrew, in their believing ignorance, assurances and omens from the winds\nof heaven, the changes of the moon, and the flights of the wandering\nbirds. Filled (by the voices of the elements, and the variety of\nmysteries which ever shift along the face of things, unsolved by the\nwonder which pauses not, the fear which believes, and that eternal\nreasoning of all experience, which assigns causes to effects) with\nthe notion of superior powers, _they assisted their ignorance by the\nconjectures of their superstition_. But as yet they knew no craft\nand practiced no _voluntary_ delusion; they trembled too much at the\nmysteries, which had created their faith, to seek to belie them. They\ncounselled as they believed, and the bold dream had never dared to cross\nmen thus worn and grey with age, of governing their warriors and their\nkings by the wisdom of deceit.\n\nThe son of Osslah entered the vast pile with a fearless step, and\napproached the place at the upper end of the hall, where the old men sat\nin conclave.\n\n\u201cHow, base-torn and craven limbed!\u201d cried the eldest, who had been\na noted warrior in his day; \u201cdarest thou enter unsummoned amidst the\nsecret councils of the wise men? Knowest thou not, scatterling! that the\npenalty is death?\u201d\n\n\u201cSlay me, if thou wilt,\u201d answered Morven \u201cbut hear!\n\n\u201cAs I sat last night in the ruined palace of our ancient kings, tending,\nas my father bade me, the sheep that grazed around, lest the fierce\ntribe of Alrich should descend unseen from the mountains upon the herd,\na storm came darkly on; and when the storm, had ceased and I looked\nabove on the sky, I saw a star descend from its height towards me, and\na voice from the star said, \u2018Son of Osslah, leave thy herd and seek the\ncouncil of the wise men, and say unto them, that they take thee as one\nof their number, or that sudden will be the destruction of them, and\ntheirs.\u2019\n\n\u201cBut I had courage to answer the voice, and I said, \u2018Mock not the poor\nson of the herdsman. Behold they will kill me if I utter so rash a word,\nfor I am poor and valueless in the eyes of the tribe of Oestrich, and\nthe great in deeds and the grey of hair alone sit in the council of the\nwise men.\u2019\n\n\u201cThen the voice said, \u2018Do my bidding, and I will give thee a token that\nthou comest from the powers that sway the seasons and sail upon the\neagles of the winds. Say unto the wise men that this very night if they\nrefuse to receive thee of their band, evil shall fall upon them, and the\nmorrow shall dawn in blood.\u2019\n\n\u201cThen the voice ceased, and a cloud passed over the star; and I communed\nwith myself, and came, O dread fathers, mournfully unto you. For I\nfeared that ye would smite me because of my bold tongue, and that ye\nwould, sentence me to the death, in that I asked what may scarce be\ngiven even to the sons of kings.\u201d\n\nThen the grim elders looked one at the other and marvelled much, nor\nknew they what answer they should make to the herdsman\u2019s son.\n\nAt length one of the wise men said, \u201cSurely there must be truth in the\nson of Osslah, for he would not dare to falsify the great lights of\nheaven. If he had given unto men the words of the star, verily we\nmight doubt the truth. But who would brave the vengeance of the gods of\nnight?\u201d\n\nThen the elders shook their heads approvingly; but one answered and\nsaid:\n\n\u201cShall we take the herdsman\u2019s son as our equal? No!\u201d\n\nThe name of the man who thus answered was Darvan, and his words were\npleasing to the elders.\n\nBut Morven spoke out:\n\n\u201cOf a truth, O councilors of kings! I look not to be an equal with\nyourselves. Enough if I tend the gates of your palace, and serve you as\nthe son of Osslah may serve;\u201d and he bowed his head humbly as he spoke.\n\nThen said the chief of the elders, for he was wiser than the others,\n\u201cBut how wilt thou deliver us from the evil that is to come? Doubtless\nthe star hath informed thee of the service thou canst render to us if we\ntake thee into our palace, as well as the ill that will fall on us if we\nrefuse.\u201d\n\nMorven answered meekly: \u201cSurely, if thou acceptest thy servant, the star\nwill teach him that which may requite thee; but as yet he knows only\nwhat he has uttered.\u201d\n\nThen the sages bade him withdraw, and they communed with themselves and\nthey differed much; but though fierce men and bold at the war cry of a\nhuman foe, they shuddered at the prophecy of a star. So they resolved\nto take the son of Osslah, and suffer him to keep the gate of the\ncouncil-hall.\n\nHe heard their decree and towed his head, and went to the gate, and sat\ndown by it in silence.\n\nAnd the sun went down in the west, and the first stats of the twilight\nbegan to glimmer, when Morven started front his seat, and a trembling\nappeared to seize his limbs. His lips foamed; an agony and a fear\npossessed him; he writhed as a man whom the spear of a foeman has\npierced with a mortal wound, and suddenly fell upon his face on the\nstony earth.\n\n\nThe elders approached him; wondering, they lifted him up. He slowly\nrecovered as from a swoon; his eyes rolled wildly.\n\n\u201cHeard ye not the voice of the star?\u201d he said.\n\nAnd the chief of the elders answered, \u201cNay, we heard no sound.\u201d\n\nThen Morven sighed heavily.\n\n\u201cTo me only the word was given. Summon instantly, O councilors of the\nking! summon the armed men, and all the youth of the tribe, and let them\ntake the sword and the spear, and follow thy servant. For lo! the star\nhath announced to him that the foe shall fall into our hands as the wild\nbeast of the forests.\u201d\n\nThe son of Osslah spoke with the voice of command, and the elders were\namazed.\n\n\u201cWhy, pause ye?\u201d he cried. \u201cDo the gods of the night lie? On my head\nrest the peril if I deceive ye.\u201d\n\nThen the elders communed together; and they went forth and summoned the\nmen of arms, and all the young of the tribe; and each man took the sword\nand the spear, and Morven also. And the son of Osslah walked first,\nstill looking up at the star; and he motioned them to be silent, and\nmove with a stealthy step.\n\nSo they went through the thickest of the forest, till they came to the\nmouth of a great cave, overgrown with aged and matted trees, and it was\ncalled the cave of Oderlin; and he bade the leaders place the armed men\non either side the cave, to the right and to the left, among the hushes.\n\nSo they watched silently till the night deepened, when they heard a\nnoise in the cave and the sound of feet, and forth came an armed man;\nand the spear of Morven pierced him, and he fell dead at the mouth of\nthe cave. Another and another, and both fell! Then loud and long was\nheard the warcry of Alrich, and forth poured, as a stream over a narrow\nbed, the river of armed men.\n\nAnd the Sons of Oestrich fell upon them, and the foe were sorely\nperplexed and terrified by the suddenness of the battle and the darkness\nof the night; and there was a great slaughter.\n\nAnd when the morning came, the children of Oestrich counted the slain,\nand found the leader of Alrich and the chief men of the tribe amongst\nthem, and great was the joy thereof.\n\nSo they went back in triumph to the city, and they carded the brave son\nof Osslah on their shoulders, and shouted forth, \u201cGlory to the servant\nof the star.\u201d\n\nAnd Morven dwelt in the council of the wise men.\n\n\nNow the king of the tribe had one daughter, and she was stately amongst\nthe women of the tribe, and fair to look upon. And Morven gazed upon her\nwith the eyes of love, but he did not dare to speak.\n\nNow the son of Osslah laughed secretly at the foolishness of men; he\nloved them not, for they had mocked him; he honored them not, for he had\nblinded the wisest of their elders.\n\nHe shunned their feasts and merriment and lived apart and solitary.\n\nThe austerity of his life increased the mysterious homage which his\ncommune with the stars had won him, and the boldest of the warriors\nbowed his head to the favorite of the gods.\n\nOne day he was wandering by the side of the river, and he saw a large\nbird of prey rise from the earth, and give chase to a hawk that had not\nyet gained the full strength of its wings. From his youth the solitary\nMorven had loved to watch, in the great forests and by the banks of the\nmighty stream, the habits of the things which nature had submitted to\nman; and looking now on the birds, he said to himself, \u201cThus is it ever;\nby cunning or by strength each thing wishes to master its kind.\u201d\n\nWhile thus, moralizing, the larger bird had stricken down the hawk, and\nit fell terrified and panting at his feet.\n\nMorven took the hawk in his hands, and the vulture shrieked above him,\nwheeling nearer and nearer to its protected prey; but Morven scared away\nthe vulture, and placing the hawk in his bosom, he carried it home, and\ntended it carefully, and fed it from his hand until it had regained its\nstrength; and the hawk knew him, and followed him as a dog.\n\nAnd Morven said, smiling to himself, \u201cBehold, _the credulous fools\naround me put faith in the flight and motions of birds_. I will teach\nthis poor hawk to minister to my ends.\u201d\n\nSo he tamed the bird, and tutored it according to its nature; but he\nconcealed it carefully from others, and cherished it in secret.\n\nThe king of the country was old and like to die, and the eyes of the\ntribe were turned to his two sons, nor knew they which was the worthier\nto reign.\n\nAnd Morven passing through the forest one evening, saw the younger of\nthe two, who was a great hunter, sitting mournfully under an oak, and\nlooking with musing eyes upon the ground.\n\n\u201cWherefore musest thou, O swift footed Siror?\u201d said the son of Osslah;\n\u201cand wherefore art thou sad?\u201d\n\n\u201cThou canst not assist me,\u201d answered the prince, sternly; \u201ctake thy\nway.\u201d\n\n\u201cNay,\u201d answered Morven, \u201cthou knowest not what thou sayest; am I not the\nfavorite of the stars?\u201d\n\n\u201cAway, I am no graybeard whom the approach of death makes doting: talk\nnot to inc of the stars; I know only the things that my eye sees and my\near drinks in.\u201d\n\n\u201cHush,\u201d said Morven, solemnly, and covering his face; \u201chush! lest the\nheavens avenge thy rashness. But, behold, the stars have given unto me\nto pierce the secret hearts of others; and I can tell thee the thoughts\nof thine.\u201d\n\n\u201cSpeak out, base-born!\u201d\n\n\u201cThou art the younger of two, and thy name is less known in war than the\nname of thy brother; yet wouldst thou desire to be set over his head,\nand to sit at the high seat of thy father?\u201d\n\nThe young man turned pale.\n\n\u201cThou hast truth in thy lips,\u201d said he, with a faltering voice.\n\n\u201cNot from me, but from the stars, descends the truth.\u201d\n\n\u201cCan the stars grant my wish?\u201d\n\n\u201cThey can; let us meet to-morrow.\u201d Thus saying, Morven passed into the\nforest.\n\nThe next day, at noon, they met again.\n\n\u201cI have consulted the gods of night, and they have given me the power\nthat I prayed for, but on one condition.\u201d\n\n\u201cName it.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat thou sacrifice thy sister on their altars thou must build up a\nheap of stones, and take thy sister into the wood, and lay her on the\npile, and plunge thy sword into her heart; so only shalt then reign.\u201d\n\nThe prince shuddered, and started to his feet, and shook his spear at\nthe pale front of Morven.\n\n\u201cTremble,\u201d said the son of Osslah, with a loud voice. \u201cHark to the gods,\nwho threaten thee with death, that thou hast dared to lift thine arm\nagainst their servant!\u201d\n\nAs he spoke, the thunder rolled above; for one of the frequent storms of\nthe early summer was about to break.\n\nThe spear dropped from the prince\u2019s hand; he sat down and cast his eyes\non the ground.\n\n\u201cWilt thou do the bidding of the stars, and reign?\u201d said Morven.\n\n\u201cI will!\u201d cried Siror, with a desperate voice.\n\n\u201cThis evening, then, when the sun sets, thou wilt lead her hither,\nalone; I may not attend thee. Now, let us pile the stones.\u201d\n\nSilently the huntsman bent his vast strength to the fragments of rock\nthat Morven pointed to him, and they built the altar, and went their\nway.\n\n\nAnd beautiful is the dying of the great sum when the last song of the\nbirds fades into the lap of silence; when the islands of the cloud are\nbathed in light, and the first star springs up over the grave of day.\n\n\n\u201cWhither leadest thou my steps, my brother?\u201d said Gina; \u201cand why doth\nthy lip quiver? and why dost thou tarn away thy face?\u201d\n\n\u201cIs not the forest beautiful; doth it not tempt us forth, my sister?\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd wherefore are those heaps of stone piled together?\u201d\n\n\u201cLet others answer; _I_ piled them not.\u201d\n\n\u201cThou tremblest brother: we will return.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot so; by those stones is a bird that my shaft pierced to-day; a bird\nof beautiful plumage that I slew for thee.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe are by the pile: where hast thou laid the bird?\u201d\n\n\u201cHere!\u201d cried Siror; and he seized the maiden in his arms, and, casting\nher on the rude altar, he drew forth his sword to smite her to the\nheart.\n\nRight over the stones rose a giant oak, the growth of immemorial ages;\nand from the oak, or from the heavens; broke forth a loud and solemn\nvoice:\n\n\u201cStrike not, son of kings! the stars forbear their own: the maiden thou\nshalt not slay; yet shalt thou reign over the race of Oestrich; and thou\nshall give Orna as a bride to the favorite of the stars. Arise, and go\nthy way!\u201d\n\nThe voice ceased: the terror of Orna had overpowered for a time the\nsprings of life; and Siror bore her home through the wood in his strong\narms.\n\n\n\u201cAlas!\u201d said Morven, when, at the next day, he again met the aspiring\nprince; \u201calas! the stars have ordained me a lot which my heart desires\nnot; for I, lonely of life, and crippled of shape, am insensible to the\nfires of love; and ever, as thou and thy tribe know, I have shunned the\neyes of women, for the maidens laughed at my halting step and my sullen\nfeatures; and so in my youth I learned betimes to banish all thoughts\nof love. But since they told me (as they declared to _thee_), that only\nthrough that marriage, thou, O beloved prince! canst obtain thy fatter\u2019s\nplumed crown, I yield me to their will.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d said the prince, \u201cnot until I am king can I give thee my sister\nin marriage; for thou knowest that my sire would smite me to the dust,\nif I asked him to give the flower of our race to the son of the herdsman\nOsslah.\u201d\n\n\u201cThou speakest the words of truth. Go home and fear not: but, when thou\nart king, the sacrifice must be made, and Orna mine. Alas! how can\nI dare to lift my eyes to her! But so ordain the dread kings of the\nnight!--Who shall gainsay their word?\u201d\n\n\u201cThe day that sees me king, sees Orna thine,\u201d answered the prince.\n\nMorven walked forth, as was his wont, alone; and he said to himself,\n\u201cthe king is old, yet may he live long between me and mine hope!\u201d and he\nbegan to cast in his mind how he might shorten the time.\n\nThus absorbed, he wandered on so unheedingly, that night advanced, and\nhe had lost his path among the thick woods, and knew not how to regain\nhis home; so he lay down quietly beneath a tree, and rested till day\ndawned.\n\nThen hunger came upon him and he searched among the bushes for such\nsimple roots as those with which, for he was ever careless of food, he\nwas used to appease the cravings of nature.\n\nHe found, among other more familiar herbs and roots, a red berry of\na sweetish taste, which he had never observed before. He ate of it\nsparingly, and had not proceeded far in the wood before he found his\neyes swim, and a deadly sickness come over him. For several hours he lay\nconvulsed on the ground expecting death; but the gaunt spareness of his\nframe, and his unvarying abstinence, prevailed over the poison, and he\nrecovered slowly, and after great anguish: but he went with feeble steps\nback to the spot where the berries grew, and, plucking several, hid them\nin his bosom, and by nightfall regained the city.\n\nThe next day he went forth among his father\u2019s herds, and seizing a lamb,\nforced some of the berries into its stomach, and the lamb, escaping, ran\naway, and fell down dead. Then Morven took some more of the berries and\nboiled them down, and mixed the juice with wine, and he gave the wine in\nsecret to one of his father\u2019s servants, and the servant died.\n\nThen Morven sought the king, and coming into his presence alone, he said\nunto him, \u201cHow fares my lord?\u201d\n\nThe king sat on a couch, made of the skins of wolves, and his eye was\nglassy and dim; but vast were his aged limbs and huge was his stature,\nand he had been taller by a head than the children of men, and none\nliving could bend the bow he had bent in youth. Grey, gaunt and worn, as\nsome mighty bones that are dug at times from the bosom of the earth--a\nrelic of the strength of old.\n\nAnd the king said, faintly, and with a ghastly laugh:\n\n\u201cThe men of my years fare ill. What avails my strength? Better had I\nbeen born a cripple like thee, so should I have had nothing to lament in\ngrowing old.\u201d\n\nThe red flash passed over Morven\u2019s brow; but he bent humbly--\n\n\u201cO king, what if I could give thee back thy youth? What if I could\nrestore to thee the vigor which distinguished thee above the sons of\nmen, when the warriors of Alrich fell like grass before thy sword?\u201d\n\nThen the king uplifted his dull eyes, and he said:\n\n\u201cWhat meanest thou, son of Osslah? Surely I hear much of thy great\nwisdom, and how thou speakest nightly with the stars. Can the gods of\nthe night give unto thee the secret to make the old young?\u201d\n\n\u201cTempt them not by doubt,\u201d said Morven, reverently. \u201cAll things are\npossible to the rulers of the dark hour; and, lo! the star that loves\nthy servant spake to him at the dead of night, and said, \u2018Arise, and go\nunto the king; and tell him that the stars honor the tribe of Oestrich,\nand remember how the king bent his bow against the Sons of Alrich;\nwherefore, look thou under the stone that lies to the right of thy\ndwelling--even beside the pine-tree, and thou shalt see a vessel of\nclay, and in the vessel thou wilt find a sweet liquid, that shall make\nthe king thy master forget his age forever.\u2019\n\n\u201cTherefore, my lord, when the morning rose I went forth, and looked\nunder the stone, and behold the vessel of clay; and I have brought it\nhither to my lord, the king.\u201d\n\n\u201cQuick--slave--quick! that I may drink and regain my youth!\u201d\n\n\u201cNay, listen, O king! farther said the star to me:\n\n\u201c\u2018It is only at night, when the stars have power, that this their gift\nwill avail; wherefore, the king must wait till the hush of the midnight,\nwhen the moon is high, and then may he mingle the liquid with his wine.\n\n\u201c\u2018And he must reveal to none that he hath received the gift from the\nhand of the servant of the stars. For THEY do their work in secret, and\nwhen men sleep; therefore they love not the babble of mouths, and he who\nreveals their benefits shall surely die.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cFear not,\u201d said the king, grasping the vessel; \u201cnone shall know: and,\nbehold, I will rise on the morrow; and my two sons--wrangling for my\ncrown--verily, I shall be younger than they!\u201d\n\nThen the king laughed loud; and he scarcely thanked the servant of the\nstars, neither did he promise him reward: for the kings in those days\nhad little thought--save for themselves.\n\nAnd Morven said to him, \u201cShall I not attend my lord? for without me,\nperchance, the drug might fail of its effect.\u201d\n\n\u201cAye,\u201d said the king, \u201crest here.\u201d\n\n\u201cNay,\u201d replied Morven; \u201cthy servants will marvel and talk much, if they\nsee the son of Osslah sojourning in thy palace. So would the displeasure\nof the gods of night perchance be incurred. Suffer that the lesser door\nof the palace be unbarred, so that at the night hour, when the moon is\nmidway in the heavens, I may steal unseen into thy chamber, and mix the\nliquid with thy wine.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo be it,\u201d said the king. \u201cThou art wise though thy limbs are crooked\nand curt; and the stars might have chosen a taller man.\u201d\n\nThen the king laughed again; and Morven laughed too, but there was\ndanger in the mirth of the son of Osslah.\n\n\nThe night had began to wane, and the inhabitants of Oestrich were buried\nin deep sleep, when, hark! a sharp voice was heard crying out in the\nstreets, \u201cWoe, woe! Awake ye sons of Oestrich--woe!\u201d\n\nThen forth, wild--haggard--alarmed--spear in hand, rushed the giant sons\nof the rugged tribe, and they saw a man on a height in the middle of the\ncity, shrieking, \u201cWoe!\u201d and it was Morven, the son of Osslah!\n\nAnd he said unto them, as they gathered round him, \u201cMen and warriors,\ntremble as ye hear.\n\n\u201cThe star of the west hath spoken to me and thus saith the star:\n\n\u201c\u2018Evil shall fall upon the kingly house of Oestrich--yea, ere the\nmorning dawns; wherefore, go thou mourning into the streets, and wake\nthe inhabitants to woe!\u2019\n\n\u201cSo I rose and did the bidding of the star.\u201d\n\nAnd while Morven was yet speaking, a servant of the king\u2019s house ran up\nto the crowd, crying loudly:\n\n\u201cThe king is dead!\u201d\n\nSo they went into the palace and found the king stark upon his couch,\nand his huge limbs all cramped and crippled by the pangs of death,\nand his hands clenched as if in menace of a foe--the foe of all living\nflesh!\n\nThen fear came on the gazers, and they looked on Morven with a deeper\nawe than the boldest warrior would have called forth: and they bore him\nback to the council-hall of the wise men, wailing and clashing their\narms in woe, and shouting, ever and anon:\n\n\u201c_Honor to Morven, the prophet!_\u201d\n\nAnd that was the first time the word PROPHET was ever used in those\ncountries.\n\n\nAt noon, on the third day from the king\u2019s death, Siror sought Morven,\nand he said:\n\n\u201cLo, my father is no more, and the people meet this evening at sunset\nto elect his successor, and the warriors and the young men will surely\nchoose my brother, for he is more known in war. Fail me not, therefore.\u201d\n\n\u201cPeace, boy!\u201d said Morven, sternly; \u201cnor dare to question the truth of\nthe gods of night.\u201d\n\nFor Morven now began to presume on his power among the people, and to\nspeak as rulers speak, even to the sons of kings.\n\nAnd the voice silenced the fiery Siror, nor dared he to reply.\n\n\u201cBehold,\u201d said Morven, taking up a chaplet of colored plumes, \u201cwear\nthis on thy head, and put on a brave face--for the people like a hopeful\nspirit--and go down with thy brother to the place where the new king is\nto be chosen, and leave the rest to the stars.\n\n\u201cBut, above all things, forget not that chaplet; it has been blessed by\nthe gods of night.\u201d\n\nThe prince took the chaplet and returned home.\n\nIt was evening and the warriors and chiefs of the tribe were assembled\nin the place where the new king was to be elected.\n\nAnd the voices of the many favored Prince Voltoch, the brother of Siror,\nfor he had slain twelve foeman with his spear; and verily, in those\ndays, that was a great virtue in a king.\n\nSuddenly there was a shout in the streets, and the people cried out:\n\n\u201cWay for Morven, the prophet, the prophet!\u201d\n\nFor the people held the son of Osslah in even greater respect than did\nthe chiefs.\n\nNow, since he had become of note, Morven had assumed a majesty of air\nwhich the son of the herdsman knew not in his earlier days; and albeit\nhis stature was short, and his limbs halted, yet his countenance was\ngrave and high.\n\nHe only of the tribe wore a garment that swept the ground, and his head\nwas bare, and his long black hair descended to his girdle, and rarely\nwas change or human passion seen in his calm aspect.\n\nHe feasted not, nor drank wine, nor was his presence frequent in the\nstreets.\n\nHe laughed not, neither did he smile, save when alone in the forest--and\nthen he laughed at the follies of his tribe.\n\nSo he walked slowly through the crowd, neither turning to the left nor\nto the right, as the crowd gave way; and he supported his steps with a\nstaff of the knotted pine.\n\nAnd when he came to the place where the chiefs were met, and the two\nprinces stood in the centre, he bade the people around him proclaim\nsilence.\n\nThen mounting on a huge fragment of rock, he thus spake to the\nmultitude:\n\n\u201cPrinces, wantons and bards! ye, O council of the wise men! and ye, O\nhunters of the forests, and snarers of the fishes of the streams! harken\nto Morven, the son of Osslah.\n\n\u201cYe know that I am lowly of race, and weak of limb; but did I not give\ninto your hands the tribe of Alrich, and did ye not slay them in the\ndead of night with a great slaughter?\n\n\u201cSurely, ye must know that this of himself did not the herdsman\u2019s son;\nsurely he was but the agent of the bright gods that love the children of\nOestrich.\n\n\u201cThree nights since, when slumber was on the earth, was not my voice\nheard in the streets?\n\n\u201cDid I not proclaim woe to the kingly house of Oestrich? and verily the\ndark arm had fallen on the bosom of the mighty, that is no more.\n\n\u201cCould I have dreamed this thing merely in a dream, or was I not as the\nvoice of the bright gods that watch over the tribes of Oestrich?\n\n\u201cWherefore, O men and chiefs! scorn not the son of Osslah, but listen to\nhis words; for are they not the wisdom of the stars?\n\n\u201cBehold, last night, I sat alone in the valley, and the trees were\nhushed around, and not a breath stirred; and I looked upon the star that\ncounsels the son of Osslah; and I said:\n\n\u201c\u2018Dread conqueror of the cloud! thou that bathest thy beauty in the\nstreams and piercest the pine-boughs with thy presence; behold thy\nservant grieved because the mighty one hath passed away, and many foes\nsurround the houses of my brethren; and it is well that they should have\na king valiant and prosperous in war, the cherished of the stars.\n\n\u201c\u2018Wherefore, O star! as thou gavest into our hands the warriors\nof Alrich, and didst warn us of the fall of the oak of our tribe,\nwherefore, I pray thee, give unto the people a token that they may\nchoose that king whom the gods of the night prefer!\u2019\n\n\u201cThen a low voice sweeter than the music of the bard, stole along the\nsilence.\n\n\u201c\u2018Thy love for thy race is grateful to the stars of night: go then, son\nof Osslah, and seek the meeting of the chiefs and the people to choose a\nking, and tell them not to scorn thee because thou art slow to the chase\nand little known in war; for the stars give thee wisdom as a recompense\nfor all.\n\n\u201c\u2018Say unto the people that as the wise men of the council shape their\nlessons by the flight of birds, so by the flight of birds stall a token\nbe given unto them, and they shall choose their kings.\n\n\u201c\u2018For,\u2019 said, the star of right, \u2018the birds are children of the winds,\nthey pass to and fro along the ocean of the air, and visit the clouds\nthat are the warships of the gods.\n\n\u201c\u2018And their music is but broken melodies which they gleam from the harps\nabove.\n\n\u201c\u2018Are they not the messengers of the storm?\n\n\u201c\u2018Ere the stream chafes against the bank, and the rain descends, know ye\nnot, by the wail of birds and their low circles over the earth, that the\ntempest is at hand?\n\n\u201c\u2018Wherefore, wisely do ye deem that the children of the air are the fit\ninterpreters between the sons of men and the lords of the world above.\n\n\u201c\u2018Say then to the people and the chiefs, that they shall take, from\namong the doves that nest in the roof of the palace, a white dove, and\nthey shall let it loose in the air, and verily the gods of the night\nshall deem the dove as a prayer coming from the people, and they shall\nsend a messenger to grant the prayer and give to the tribes of Oestrich\na king worthy of themselves.\u2019\n\n\u201cWith that the star spoke no more.\u201d\n\nThen the friends of Voltoch murmured among themselves, and they said,\n\u201cShall this man dictate to us who shall be king?\u201d\n\nBut the people and the warriors shouted:\n\n\u201cListen to the star; do we not give or deny battle according as the\nbird flies--shall we not by the same token choose him by whom the battle\nshould be led?\u201d\n\nAnd the thing seemed natural to them, for it was after the custom of the\ntribe.\n\nThen they took one of the doves that built in the roof of the palace,\nand they bought it to the spot where Morven stood, and he, looking up to\nthe stars and muttering to himself, released the bird.\n\nThere was a copse of trees a little distance from the spot, and as the\ndove ascended, a hawk suddenly rose from the copse and pursued the dove;\nand the dove was terrified, and soared circling high above the crowd,\nwhen, lo, the hawk, poising itself one moment on its wings, swooped with\na sudden swoop, and, abandoning its prey, alighted on the plumed head of\nSiror.\n\n\u201cBehold,\u201d cried Morven in a loud voice, \u201cbehold your king!\u201d\n\n\u201cHail, all hail the king!\u201d shouted the people. \u201cAll hail the chosen of\nthe stars!\u201d\n\nThen Morven lifted his right hand, and the hawk left the prince, and\nalighted on Morven\u2019s shoulder.\n\n\u201cBird of the gods!\u201d said he, reverently, \u201chast thou not a secret message\nfor my ear?\u201d Then the hawk put its beak to Morven\u2019s ear, and Morven\nbowed his head submissively; and the hawk rested with Morven from that\nmoment and would not be scared away.\n\nAnd Morven said:\n\n\u201cThe stars have sent me this bird, that, in the day-time, when I see\nthem not, we may never be without a counsellor in distress.\u201d\n\nSo Siror was made king, and Maven the son of Osslah was constrained by\nthe king\u2019s will to take Orna for his wife; and the people and the chiefs\nhonored Morven, the prophet, above all the elders of the tribe.\n\n\nOne day Morven said unto himself, musing, \u201cAm I not already equal with\nthe king? nay, is not the king my servant? did I not place him over the\nheads of his brothers? am I not, therefore, more fit to reign than he\nis? shall I not push him from his seat?\n\n\u201cIt is a troublesome and stormy office to reign over the wild men of\nOestrich, to feast in the crowded hail, and to lead die warriors to the\nfray.\n\n\u201cSurely, if I feasted not, neither went out to war, they might say,\n\u2018This is no king, but the cripple Morven;\u2019 and some of the race of Siror\nmight slay me secretly.\n\n\u201cBut can I not be greater far than kings, and continue to choose and\ngovern them, living as now at mine own ease?\n\n\u201c_Verily, the stars shall give me a new palace, and many subjects_.\u201d\n\nAmong the wise men was Darvan; and Morven feared him, for his eye often\nsought the movements of the son of Osslah.\n\nAnd Morven said \u201cIt were better to TRUST this man than to BLIND, for\nsurely I want a helpmate and a friend.\u201d\n\nSo he said to the wise man as he sat alone watching the setting sun:\n\n\u201cIt seemeth to me, O Darvan! I that we ought to build a great pile in\nhonor of the stars and the pile should be more glorious than all the\npalaces of the chiefs and the palaces of the king; for are not the stars\nour masters?\n\n\u201cAnd thou and I should be the chief dwellers in this new palace, and we\nwould serve the gods of night, and fatten their altars with the choicest\nof the herd, and the freshest of the fruits of the earth.\u201d\n\nAnd Darvan said:\n\n\u201cThou speakest as becomes the servant of the stars. But will the people\nhelp to build the pile, for they are a war-like race and they love not\ntoil?\u201d\n\nAnd Morven answered:\n\n\u201c_Doubtless the stars will ordain the work to be done. Fear not_.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn truth thou art a wondrous man, thy words ever come to pass,\u201d answered\nDarvan; \u201cand I wish thou wouldest teach me, friend, the language of the\nstars.\u201d\n\n\u201cAssuredly if thou servest me thou shalt know,\u201d answered the proud\nMorven; and Darvan was secretly wroth that the son of the herdsman\nshould command the service of an elder and a chief.\n\nAnd when Morven returned to his wife he found her weeping much.\n\nNow she loved the son of Osslah with an exceeding love, for he was not\nsavage and fierce as the men she had known, and she was proud of his\nfame among the tribe; and he took her in his arms and kissed her, and\nasked her why she wept.\n\nThen she told him that her brother, the king, had visited her and had\nspoken bitter words of Morven.\n\n\u201cHe taketh from me the affection of my people,\u201d said Siror, \u201cand\nblindeth them with lies. And since he hath made me king, what if he take\nmy kingdom from me? Verily, a new tale of the stars might undo the old.\u201d\n\nAnd the king had ordered her to keep watch on Morven\u2019s secrecy, and to\nsee whether truth was in him when he boasted of his commune with the\nPowers of Night.\n\nBut Orna loved Morven better than Siror, therefore she told her husband\nall.\n\nAnd Morven resented the king\u2019s ingratitude, and was troubled much, for\na king is a powerful foe; but tie comforted Orna, and bade her dissemble\nand complain also of him to her brother, so that he might confide to her\nunsuspectingly whatsoever he might design against Morven.\n\nThere was a cave by Morven\u2019s house in which he kept the sacred hawk,\nand wherein he secretly trained and nurtured other birds against future\nneed, and the door of the cave was always barred.\n\nAnd one day he was thus engaged when he beheld a chink in the wall, that\nhe had never noted before, and the sun came playfully in; and while he\nlooked he perceived the sunbeam was darkened, and presently he saw a\nhuman face peering in through the chink.\n\nAnd Morven trembled, for he knew he had been watched.\n\n\nMorven ran hastily from the cave, but the spy had disappeared among the\ntrees, and Morven went straight to the chamber of Darvan and sat himself\ndown.\n\nDarvan did not return home till late, and he started and turned pale\nwhen he saw Morven.\n\nBut Morven greeted him as a brother, and bade him to a feast, which, for\nthe first time, he purposed giving at the full of the moon, in honor of\nthe stars.\n\nAnd going out of Darvan\u2019s chamber, he returned to his wife, and bade her\nhair, and go at the dawn of day to the king, her brother, and complain\nbitterly of Morven\u2019s treatment, and pluck the black schemes from the\nbreast of the king. \u201cFor surely,\u201d said he, \u201cDarvan hath lied to thy\nbrother, and some evil awaits me that I would fain know.\u201d\n\nSo the next morning Orna sought the king, and she said:\n\n\u201cThe herdsman\u2019s son hath reviled me, and spoken harsh words to me; stall\nI not be avenged?\u201d\n\nThen the king stamped his feet and shook his mighty sword.\n\n\u201cSurely thou shalt be avenged, for I have learned from one of the elders\nthat which convinceth me that the man hath lied to the people, and the\nbase-born shall surely die.\n\n\u201cYea, the first time that he goeth alone into the forest my brother and\nI will fall upon him and smite him to the death.\u201d\n\nAnd with this comfort Siror dismissed Orna.\n\nAnd Orna flung herself at the feet of her husband.\n\n\u201cFly now, O my beloved!--fly into the forests afar from my brethren, or\nsurely the sword of Siror will end thy days.\u201d\n\nThen the son of Osslab folded his arms, and seemed buried in black\nthoughts; nor did he heed the voice of Orna, until again and again she\nhad implored him to fly.\n\n\u201cFly!\u201d he said at length. \u201cNay, I was doubting what punishment the stars\nshould pour down upon our foe. Let warriors fly. Morven, the prophet,\nconquers by arms mightier than the sword.\u201d\n\nNevertheless Morven was perplexed in his mind, and knew not how to save\nhimself from the vengeance of the king.\n\n\nNow, while Morven was musing hopelessly, he heard a roar of waters;\nand behold the river, for it was now the end of autumn, had burst its\nbounds, and was rushing along the valley to the houses of the city.\n\nAnd now the men of the tribe, and the women, and the children, came\nrunning, and with shrieks to Morven\u2019s house, crying:\n\n\u201cBehold the river has burst upon us!--Save us, O ruler of the stars!\u201d\n\nThen the sudden thought broke upon Morven and he resolved to risk his\nfate upon one desperate scheme.\n\nAnd he came out from the house calm and sad, and he said:\n\n\u201cYe know not what ye ask; I cannot save ye from this peril: ye have\nbrought it on yourselves.\u201d\n\nAnd they cried: \u201cHow? O son of Osslah--we are ignorant of our crime.\u201d\n\nAnd he answered:\n\n\u201cGo down to the king\u2019s palace and wait before it, and surely I will\nfollow ye, and ye shall learn wherefore ye have incurred this punishment\nfrom the gods.\u201d\n\nThen the crowd rolled murmuring back, as a receding sea; and when it was\ngone from the place, Morven went alone to the house of Darvan, which was\nnext his own: and Darvan was greatly terrified, for he was of a great\nage, and had no children, neither friends, and he feared that he could\nnot of himself escape the waters.\n\nAnd Morven said to him, soothingly:\n\n\u201cLo, the people love me, and I will see that thou art saved for verily\nthou hast been friendly to me, and done me much service with the king.\u201d\n\nAnd as he thus spake, Morven opened the door of the house and looked\nforth, and saw that they were quite alone; then he seized the old man by\nthe throat, and ceased not his grip till he was quite dead.\n\nAnd leaving the body of the elder on the floor, Morven, stole from the\nhouse and shut the gate.\n\nAnd as he was going to his cave he mused a little while, when, hearing\nthe mighty roar of the waves advancing, and afar off the shrieks of\nwomen, he lifted up his head, and said proudly:\n\n\u201cNo! in this hour terror alone shall be my slave; I will use no art save\nthe power of my soul.\u201d\n\nSo, leaning on his pine staff, he strode down to the palace.\n\nAnd it was now evening, and many of the men held torches, that they\nmight see each other\u2019s faces in the universal fear.\n\nRed flashed the quivering flames on the dark robes and pale front of\nMorven; and he seemed mightier than the rest, because his face alone was\ncalm amidst the tumult.\n\nAnd louder and hoarser came the roar of the waters; and swift rusted the\nshades of night over the hastening tide.\n\nAnd Morven said in a stern voice:\n\n\u201cWhere is the king; and wherefore is he absent from his people in the\nhour of dread?\u201d\n\nThen the gate of the palace opened; and, behold Siror was sitting in the\nhall by the vast pine-fire and his brother by his side, and his chiefs\naround him: for they would not deign to come amongst the crowd at the\nbidding of the herdsman\u2019s son.\n\nThen Morven, standing upon a rock above the heads of the people (the\nsame rack whereon he had proclaimed the king), thus spake:\n\n\u201cYe desired to know, O sons of Oestrich! wherefore the river hath burst\nits bounds, and the peril hath come upon you.\n\n\u201cLearn then, that the stars resent as the foulest of human crimes an\ninsult to their servants and delegates below.\n\n\u201cYe are all aware of the manner of life of Morven, whom ye have surnamed\nthe Prophet!\n\n\u201cHe harms not man or beast; he lives alone; and, far from the wild joys\nof the warrior tribe, he worships in awe and fear the Powers of Night!\n\n\u201cSo is he able to advise ye of the coming danger--so is he able to save\nye from the foe. Thus are your huntsmen swift and your warriors bold;\nand thus do your cattle bring forth their young, and the earth its\nfruits.\n\n\u201cWhat think ye, and what do ye ask to hear?\n\n\u201cListen, men of Oestrich!--they have laid snares for my life; and there\nare amongst you those who have whetted the sword against the bosom that\nis only filled with love for you.\n\n\u201cTherefore have the stern lords of heaven loosened the chains of the\nriver--therefore doth this evil menace ye.\n\n\u201cNeither will it pass away until they who dig the pit for the servant of\nthe stars are buried in the same.\u201d\n\nThen, by the red torches, the faces of the men looked fierce and\nthreatening; and ten thousand voices shouted forth:\n\n\u201cName them who conspired against thy life, O holy prophet! and surely\nthey shall be torn limb from limb.\u201d\n\nAnd Morven turned aside, and they saw that he wept bitterly; and he\nsaid:\n\n\u201cYe have asked me, and I have answered: but now scarce will ye believe\nthe foe that I have provoked against me; and by the heavens themselves\nI swear, that if my death would satisfy their fury, nor bring down\nupon yourselves, and your children\u2019s children, the anger of the throned\nstars, gladly would I give my bosom to the knife. Yes,\u201d he cried,\nlifting up his voice, and pointing his shadowy arm towards the hall\nwhere the king sat by the pine-fire--\u201cyes, thou whom by my voice the\nstars chose above thy brother--yes, Siror, the guilty one! take thy\nsword, and come hither--strike, if thou hast the heart to strike, the\nProphet of the Gods!\u201d\n\nThe king started to his feet, and the crowd were hushed in a shuddering\nsilence.\n\nMorven resumed:\n\n\u201cKnow then, O men of Oestrich, that Siror and Voltoch, his brother, and\nDarvan, the elder of the wise men, have purposed to slay your prophet,\neven at such hour as when alone he seeks the shade of the forest to\ndevise new benefits for you. Let the king deny it, if he can!\u201d\n\nThen Voltoch, of the giant limbs, strode forth from the hall, and his\nspear quivered in his hand.\n\n\u201cRightly hast thou spoken, base son of my father\u2019s herdsman! and for\nthy sins shalt thou surely die; for thou liest when thou speakest of thy\npower with the stars, and thou laughest at the folly of them who hear\nthee: wherefore put him to death.\u201d\n\nThen the chiefs in the hall clashed their arms, and rushed forth to slay\nthe son of Osslah.\n\nBut he, stretching his unarmed hands on high, exclaimed:\n\n\u201cHear him, O dread ones of the night--hark how he blasphemeth.\u201d\n\nThen the crowd took up the word, and cried:\n\n\u201cHe blasphemeth--he blasphemeth against the prophet!\u201d\n\nBut the king and the chiefs who hated Morven, because of his power with\nthe people, rushed into the crowd; and the crowd were irresolute, nor\nknew they how to act, for never yet had they rebelled against their\nchiefs, and they feared alike the prophet and the king.\n\nAnd Siror cried:\n\n\u201cSummon Darvan to us, for he bath watched the steps of Morven, and he\nshall lift the veil from my people\u2019s eyes.\u201d\n\nThen three of the swift of foot started forth to the house of Darvan.\n\nAnd Morven cried out with a loud voice:\n\n\u201cHark! thus saith the star who, now riding through yonder cloud breaks\nforth upon my eyes--\u2018For the lie that the elder hath uttered against my\nservant, the curse of the stars shall fall upon him.\u2019 Seek, and as ye\nfind him, so may ye find ever the foes of Morven and the gods.\u201d\n\nA chill and an icy fear fell over the crowd, and even the cheek of Siror\ngrew pale; and Morven, erect and dark above the waving torches, stood\nmotionless with folded arms.\n\nAnd hark--far and fast came on the war-steeds of the wave--the people\nheard them marching to the land, and tossing their white manes in the\nroaring wind.\n\n\u201cLo, as ye listen,\u201d said Morven, calmly, \u201cthe river sweeps on. Haste,\nfor the gods will have a victim, be it your prophet or your king.\u201d\n\n\u201cSlave!\u201d shouted Siror, and his spear left his hand, and far above the\nheads of the crowd sped hissing beside the dark form of Morven, and rent\nthe trunk of the oak behind.\n\nThen the people, wroth at the danger of their beloved seer, uttered a\nwild yell, and gathered round him with brandished swords, facing their\nchieftains and their king.\n\nBut at that instant, ere the war had broken forth among the tribe, the\nthree warriors returned, and they bore Darvan on their shoulders, and\nlaid him at the feet of the king, and they said tremblingly:\n\n\u201cThus found we the elder in the centre of his own hall.\u201d\n\nAnd the people saw that Darvan was a corpse, and that the prediction of\nMorven was thus verified.\n\n\u201cSo perish the enemies of Morven and the Stars!\u201d cried the son of\nOsslah. And the people echoed the cry.\n\nThen the fury of Siror was at its height, and waving his sword above his\nhead, he plunged into the crowd:\n\n\u201cThy blood, base-born, or mine.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo be it!\u201d answered Morven, quailing not. \u201cPeople, smite the\nblasphemer. Hark how the river pours down upon your children and your\nhearths. On, on, or ye perish!\u201d\n\nAnd Siror fell, pierced by five hundred spears.\n\n\u201cSmite! smite!\u201d cried Morven, as the chiefs of the royal house gathered\nround the king.\n\nAnd the clash of swords, and the gleam of spears, and the cries of the\ndying, and the yell of the trampling people, mingled with the roar of\nthe elements, and the voices of the rushing wave.\n\nThree hundred of the chiefs perished that night by the swords of\ntheir own tribe. And the last cry of the victors was, \u201c_Morven the\nprophet_--MORVEN THE KING!\u201d\n\nAnd the son of Osslah, seeing the waves now spreading over the valley,\nled Orna his wife, and the men of Oestrich, their women and their\nchildren, to a high mount, where they waited the dawning sun.\n\nBut Orna sat apart and wept bitterly, for her brothers were no more, and\nher race had perished from the earth.\n\nAnd Morven sought to comfort her in vain.\n\nWhen the morning rose, they saw that the river had overspread the\ngreater part of the city, and now stayed its course among the hollows of\nthe vale.\n\nThen Morven said to the people: \u201cThe star kings are avenged, and their\nwrath appeased. Tarry only here until the water have melted into the\ncrevices of the soil.\u201d\n\nAnd on the fourth day they returned to the city, and no man dared to\nname another, save Morven, as the king.\n\n\nBut Morven retired into his cave and mused deeply; and then assembling\nthe people, he gave them new laws; and he made them build a mighty\ntemple in honor of the stars, and made them heap within it all that the\ntribe held most precious.\n\nAnd he took unto him fifty children from the most famous of the tribe;\nand he took also ten from among the men who had served him best, and\nhe ordained that they should serve the stars in the great temple: and\nMorven was their chief.\n\nAnd he put away the crown they pressed upon him, and he chose from among\nthe elders a new king.\n\nAnd he ordained that henceforth the servants only of the stars in the\ngreat temple should elect the king and the rulers, and hold council,\nand proclaim war: but he suffered the king to feast, and to hunt, and to\nmake merry in the banquet halls.\n\nAnd Morven built altars in the temple, and was the first who, in the\nNorth, _sacrificed the beast and the bird, and afterwards human flesh_,\nupon the altars.\n\nAnd he drew auguries from the entrails of the victim, and made schools\nfor the science of the prophet; and Morven\u2019s piety was the wonder of the\ntribe, in that he refused to be a king.\n\nAnd Morven, the high-priest, was _ten thousand times mightier than the\nking_.\n\nHe taught the people to till the ground, and to sow the herb; and by\nhis wisdom, and the valor that his prophecies instilled into men, he\nconquered all the neighboring tribes.\n\nAnd the sons of Oestrich spread themselves over a mighty empire, and\nwith them spread the name and the laws of Morven.\n\nAnd in every province which he conquered, he ordered them to build a\ntemple to the stars.\n\nBut a heavy sorrow fell upon the years of Morven.\n\nThe sister of Siror bowed down her head and survived not long the\nslaughter of her race.\n\nAnd she left Morven childless.\n\nAnd he mourned bitterly and as one distraught, for her only in the world\nhad his heart the power to love.\n\nAnd he sat down and covered his face, saying:\n\n\u201cLo: I have conquered and travailed; and never before in the world did\nman conquer what I have conquered.\n\n\u201cVerily, the empire of the iron thews and the giant limbs is no more;\nI have found a new power, that henceforth shall sway the lands;--_the\nempire of plotting brain and a commanding mind_.\n\n\u201cBut, behold, my fate is barren, and I feel already that it will grow\nneither fruit nor tree as a shelter to mine old age.\n\n\u201cDesolate and lonely shall I pass away unto my grave.\n\n\u201cO Orna! my beautiful! my loved! none were like unto thee, and to thy\nlove do I owe my glory and my life.\n\n\u201cWould for thy sake, O sweet bird! that nestled in the dark cavern of my\nheart--would for thy sake that thy brethren had been spared, for verily\nwith my life would I have purchased thine.\n\n\u201cAlas! only when I lost thee did I find that thy love was dearer to me\nthan the fear of others.\u201d\n\nAnd Morven mourned night and day, and none might comfort him.\n\nBut from that time forth he gave himself solely to the cares of his\ncalling; and his nature and his affections, and whatever there was left\nsoft in him, grew hard like stone; and he was a man without love, _and\nhe forbade love and marriage to the priest_.\n\nNow, in his latter years, there arose OTHER prophets; for the world had\ngrown wiser even by Morven\u2019s wisdom, and some did say unto themselves:\n\n\u201cBehold Morven, the herdsman\u2019s son, is a king of kings: this did the\nstars for their servant; shall we not, therefore, be also servants to\nthe star?\u201d\n\nAnd they wore black garments like Morven, and went about prophesying of\nwhat the stars foretold them.\n\nAnd Morven was exceeding wroth; for he, more than other men, knew\nthat the prophets lied; wherefore he went forth against them with the\nministers of the temple, and he took them and burned them by a slow\nfire: for thus said Morven to the people:\n\n\u201c_A true prophet hath honor, but I only am a true prophet!_\u201d\n\n\u201cTo all false prophets there shall be surely death.\u201d\n\nAnd the people applauded the piety of the son of Osslah.\n\nAnd Morven educated the wisest of the children in the mysteries of the\ntemple, so that they grew up to succeed him worthily.\n\nAnd he died full of years and honor; and they carved his effigy on a\nmighty stone before the temple, and the effigy endured for a thousand\nages, and whoso looked on it trembled; for the face was calm with the\ncalmness of unspeakable awe!\n\nAnd Morven was the first mortal of the North that made _Religion the\nstepping stone to Power_.\n\nOf a surety Morven was a great man!\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nIt was the last night of the old year, and the stars sat, each upon his\nruby throne, and watched with sleepless eyes upon the world. The\nnight was dark and troubled, the dread winds were abroad, and fast and\nfrequent hurried the clouds beneath the thrones of the kings of night.\nBut ever and anon fiery meteors flashed along the depths of heaven, and\nwere again swallowed up in the graves of darkness.\n\nAnd far below his brethren, and with a lurid haze around his orb, sat\nthe discontented star that had watched over the hunters of the North.\nAnd on the lowest abyss of space there was spread a thick and mighty\ngloom, from which, as from a caldron, rose columns of wreathing smoke;\nand still, when the great winds rested for an instant on their paths,\nvoices of woe and laughter, mingled with shrieks, were heard booming\nfrom the abyss to the upper air.\n\nAnd now, in the middest night, a vast figure rose slowly from the abyss,\nand its wings threw blackness over the world. High upward to the throne\nof the discontented star sailed the fearful shape, and the star trembled\non his throne when the form stood before him face to face. And the shape\nsaid: \u201cHail, brother!--all hail!\u201d\n\n\u201cI know thee not,\u201d answered the star: \u201cthou art not the archangel that\nvisitests the kings of night.\u201d\n\nAnd the shape laughed loud. \u201cI am the fallen star of the morning.--I am\nLucifer, thy brother. Hast thou not, O sullen king, served me and mine?\nand hast thou not wrested the earth from thy Lord who sittest above\nand given it to me by _darkening the souls of men with the religion\nof fear?_ Wherefore come, brother, come;--thou hast a throne prepared\nbeside my own in the fiery gloom. Come.--The heavens are no more for\nthee.\u201d Then the star rose from his throne, and descended to the side of\nLucifer. For ever hath the spirit of discontent had sympathy with the\nsoul of pride.\n\nAnd slowly they sank down to the gulf of gloom. It was the first night\nof the new year, and the stars sat each on his ruby throne, and watched\nwith sleepless eyes upon the world. But sorrow dimmed the bright faces\nof the kings of night, for they mourned in silence and in fear for a\nfallen brother.\n\nAnd the gates of the heaven of heavens flew open with a golden sound,\nand the swift archangel fled down on his silent wings; and the archangel\ngave to each of the stars, as before, the message of his Lord; and to\neach star was his appointed charge.\n\nAnd when the heraldry seemed done, there came a laugh from the abyss of\ngloom, and half way from the gulf rose the lurid shape of Lucifer, the\nfiend.\n\n\u201cThou countest thy flock ill, O radiant shepherd. Behold! one star is\nmissing from the three thousand and ten.\u201d\n\n\u201cBack to thy gulf, false Lucifer!--the throne of thy brother hath been\nfilled.\u201d\n\nAnd lo! as the archangel spake, the stars beheld a young and all\nlustrous stranger on the throne of the erring star; and his face was so\nsoft to look upon, that the dimmest of human eyes might have gazed upon\nits splendor unabashed; but the dark fiend alone was dazzled by its\nlustre, and, with a yell that shook the flaming pillars of the universe,\nhe plunged backwards into the gloom.\n\nThen, far and sweet from the arch unseen, came forth the voice of God:\n\n\u201cBehold! _on the throne of the discontented star sits the star of hope;\nand he that breathed into mankind the Religion of Fear hath a successor\nin him who shall teach earth the Religion of Love._\u201d\n\nAnd evermore the Star of Fear dwells with Lucifer, and the Star of Love\nkeeps vigil in heaven.\n\n\n\n\n\nON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL\n\nBy Lord Brougham\n\n\n\n\nA DISSERTATION ON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.\n\nThe question which has more than, any other harassed metaphysical\nreasoners, but especially theologians, and upon which it is probable\nthat no very satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached by the human\nfaculties, is the Origin and Sufferance of Evil.\n\nIts existence being always assumed, philosophers have formed various\ntheories for explaining it, but they have always drawn very different\ninferences from it.\n\nThe ancient Epicureans argued against the existence of the Deity,\nbecause they held that the existence of Evil either proved him to be\nlimited in power or of a malignant nature; either of which imperfections\nis inconsistent with the first notions of a divine being.\n\nIn this kind of reasoning they have been followed both by the atheists\nand sceptics of later times.\n\nBayle regarded the subject of evil as one of the great arsenals from\nwhence his weapons were to be chiefly drawn. None of the articles in his\nfamous Dictionary are more labored than those in which he treats of\nthis subject. _Monichian_, and still more _Paulician_, almost assume the\nappearance of formal treatises upon the question; and both _Marchionite_\nand _Zoroaster_ treat of the same subject. All these articles are of\nconsiderable value; they contain the greater part of the learning upon\nthe question; and they are distinguished by the acuteness of reasoning\nwhich was the other characteristic of their celebrated author.\n\nThose ancient philosophers who did not agree with Epicurus in arguing\nfrom the existence of evil against the existence of a providence that\nsuperintended and influenced the destinies of the world, were put to no\nlittle difficulty in accounting for the fact which they did not deny,\nand yet maintaining the power of a divine ruler. The doctrine of a\ndouble principle, or of two divine beings of opposite natures, one\nbeneficent, the other mischievous, was the solution which one class of\nreasoners deemed satisfactory, and to which they held themselves driven\nby the phenomena of the universe.\n\nOthers unable to deny, the existence of things which men denominate\nevil, both physical and moral, explain them in a different way. They\nmaintained that physical evil only obtains the name from our imperfect\nand vicious or feeble dispositions; that to a wise man there is no such\nthing; that we may rise superior to all such groveling notions as make\nus dread or repine at any events which can befall the body; that pain,\nsickness, loss of fortune or of reputation, exile, death itself, are\nonly accounted ills by a weak and pampered mind; that if we find the\nworld tiresome, or woeful, or displeasing, we may at any moment quit\nit; and that therefore we have no right whatever to call any suffering\nconnected with existence on earth an evil, because almost all sufferings\ncan be borne by a patient and firm mind; since if the situation we are\nplaced in becomes either intolerable, or upon the whole more painful\nthan agreeable, it is our own fault that we remain in it.\n\nBut these philosophers took a further view of the question which\nespecially applied to moral evil. They considered that nothing could be\nmore groundless than to suppose that if there were no evil there could\nbe any good in the world; and they illustrated this position by asking\nhow we could know anything of temperance, fortitude or justice, unless\nthere were such things as excess, cowardice and injustice.\n\nThese were the doctrines of the Stoics, from whose sublime and\nimpracticable philosophy they seemed naturally enough to flow. Aulus\nGellius relates that the last-mentioned argument was expounded by\nChrysippus, in his work upon providence. The answer given by Plutarch\nseems quite sufficient: \u201cAs well might you say that Achilles could not\nhave a fine head of hair unless Thersites had been bald; or that one\nman\u2019s limbs could not be all sound if another had not the gout.\u201d\n\nIn truth, the Stoical doctrine proceeds upon the assumption that all\nvirtue is only the negative of vice; and is as absurd, if indeed it\nbe not the very same absurdity, as the doctrine which should deny the\nexistence of affirmative or positive truths, resolving them all into the\nopposite of negative propositions. Indeed, if we even were to admit this\nas an abstract position, the actual existence of evil would still be\nunnecessary to the idea, and still more to the existence, of good. For\nthe conception of evil, the bare idea of its possibility, would be quite\nsufficient, and there would be no occasion for a single example of it.\n\nThe other doctrine, that of two opposite principles, was embraced by\nmost of the other sects, as it should seem, at some period or other\nof their inquiries. Plato himself, in his later works, was clearly\na supporter of the system; for he held that there were at least two\nprinciples, a good and an evil; to which he added a third, the moderator\nor mediator between them.\n\nWhether this doctrine was, like many others, imported into Greece from\nthe East, or was the natural growth of the schools, we cannot ascertain.\nCertain it is that the Greeks themselves believed it to have been taught\nby Zoroaster in Asia, at least five centuries before the Trojan war; so\nthat it had an existence there long before the name of philosophy was\nknown in the western world.\n\nZoroaster\u2019s doctrine agreed in every respect with Plato\u2019s; for besides\nOomazes, the good, and Arimanius, the evil principle, he taught that\nthere was a third, or mediatory one, called Mithras. That it never\nbecame any part of the popular belief in Greece or Italy is quite clear.\nAll the polytheism of those countries recognized each of the gods\nas authors alike of good and evil. Nor did even the chief of the\ndivinities, under whose power the rest were placed, offer any exception\nto the general rule; for Jupiter not only gave good from one urn and ill\nfrom another, but he was also, according to the barbarous mythology of\nclassical antiquity, himself a model at once of human perfections and of\nhuman vices.\n\nAfter the light of the Christian religion had made some way toward\nsupplanting the ancient polytheism, the doctrine of two principles was\nbroached; first by Marcion, who lived in the time of Adrian and Antonius\nPius, early in the second century; and next by Manes, a hundred years\nlater. He was a Persian slave, who was brought into Greece, where he\ntaught this doctrine, since known by his name, having learned it, as is\nsaid, from Scythianus, an Arabian. The Manichean doctrines, afterwards\ncalled also Paulician, from a great teacher of them in the seventh\ncentury, were like almost all the heresies in the primitive church, soon\nmixed up with gross impurities of sacred rites as well as extravagant\nabsurdities of creed.\n\nThe Manicheans were, probably as much on this account as from the spirit\nof religious intolerance, early the objects of severe persecution; and\nthe Code of Justinian itself denounces capital punishment against any of\nthe sect, if found within the Roman dominions.\n\nIt must be confessed that the theory of two principles, when kept free\nfrom the absurdities and impurities which were introduced into the\nManichean doctrine, is not unnaturally adopted by men who have no\naid from the light of revelation,[1] and who are confounded by the\nappearance of a world where evil and good are mixed together, or seem to\nstruggle with one another, sometimes the one prevailing, and sometimes\nthe other; and accordingly, in all countries, in the most barbarous\nnations, as well as among the most refined, we find plain traces of\nreflecting men having been driven to this solution of the difficulty.\n\nIt seems upon a superficial view to be very easily deducible from\nthe phenomena; and as the idea of infinite power, with which it is\nmanifestly inconsistent, does by no means so naturally present itself to\nthe mind, as long as only a very great degree of power, a power which in\ncomparison of all human force may be termed infinite, is the attribute\nwith which the Deity is believed to be endued. Manichean hypothesis is\nby no means so easily refuted. That the power of the Deity was supposed\nto have limits even in the systems of the most enlightened heathens is\nunquestionable. They, generally speaking, believed in the eternity\nof matter, and conceived some of its qualities to be so essentially\nnecessary to its existence that no divine agency could alter them.\nThey ascribed to the Deity a plastic power, a power not of creating or\nannihilating, but only of moulding, disposing and moving matter. So over\nmind they generally give him the like power, considering it as a kind\nof emanation from his own greater mind or essence, and destined to be\nre-united with him hereafter. Nay, over all the gods, and of superior\npotency to any, they conceived fate to preside; an overruling and\nparamount necessity, of which they formed some dark conceptions, and to\nwhich the chief of all the gods was supposed to submit. It is, indeed,\nextremely difficult to state precisely what the philosophic theory of\ntheology was in Greece and Rome, because the wide difference between the\nesoteric and exoteric doctrines, between the belief of the learned\nfew and the popular superstition, makes it very difficult to avoid\nconfounding the two, and lending to the former some of the grosser\nerrors with which the latter abounded. Nevertheless, we may rely upon\nwhat has been just stated, as conveying, generally speaking, the opinion\nof philosophers, although some sects certainly had a still more scanty\nmeasure of belief.\n\nBut we shall presently find that in the speculation of the much more\nenlightened moderns, Christians of course, errors of a like kind are\nto be traced. They constantly argue the great question of evil upon a\nlatent assumption, that the power of the Deity is restricted by some\npowers or qualities inherent in matter; notions analogous to that of\nfaith are occasionally perceptible; not stated or expanded indeed into\npropositions, but influencing the course of the reasoning; while the\nbelief of infinite attributes is never kept steadily in view, except\nwhen it is called in as requisite to refute the Manichean doctrines.\nSome observers of the controversy have indeed not scrupled to affirm\nthat those of whom we speak are really Manicheans without knowing it;\nand build their systems upon assumptions secretly borrowed from the\ndisciples of Zoroaster, without ever stating those assumptions openly in\nthe form of postulates or definition.\n\nThe refutation of the Manichean hypothesis is extremely easy if we\nbe permitted to assume that both the principles which it supposes are\neither of infinite power or of equal power. If they are of infinite\npower, the supposition of their co-existence involves a contradiction in\nterms; for the one being in opposition to the other, the power of each\nmust be something taken from that of the other; consequently neither\ncan be of infinite power. If, again, we only suppose both to be of equal\npower, and always acting against each other, there could be nothing\nwhatever done, neither good or evil; the universe would be at a\nstandstill; or rather no act of creation could ever have been performed,\nand no existence could be conceived beyond that of the two antagonistic\nprinciples.\n\nArchbishop Tillotson\u2019s argument, properly speaking, amounts to this\nlast proposition, and is applicable to equal and opposite principles,\nalthough he applies it to two beings, both infinitely powerful and\ncounteracting one another. When he says they would tie up each other\u2019s\nbands, he might apply this argument to such antagonistic principles if\nonly equal, although not infinitely powerful. The hypothesis of their\nbeing both infinitely powerful needs no such refutation; it is a\ncontradiction in terms. But it must be recollected that the advocates of\nthe Manichean doctrine endeavor to guard themselves against the attack\nby contending, that the conflict between the two principles ends in a\nkind of compromise, so that neither has it all his own way; there is a\nmixture of evil admitted by the good principle, because else the whole\nwould beat a standstill; while there is much good admitted by the evil\nprinciple, else nothing, either good or evil, would be done. Another\nanswer is therefore required to this theory than what Tillotson and his\nfollowers have given.\n\n_First_, we must observe that this reasoning of the Manicheans proceeds\nupon the analogy of what we see in mortal contentions; where neither\nparty having the power to defeat the other, each is content to yield\na little to his adversary, and so, by mutual concession, both are\nsuccessful to some extent, and both to some extent disappointed. But in\na speculation concerning the nature of the Deity, there seems no place\nfor such notions.\n\n_Secondly_, the equality of power is not an arbitrary assumption; it\nseems to follow from the existence of the two opposing principles. For\nif they are independent of one another as to existence, which they must\nneeds be, else one would immediately destroy the other, so must they\nalso, in each particular instance, be independent of each other, and\nalso equal each to the other, else one would have the mastery, and\nthe influence of the other could not be perceived. To say that in some\nthings the good principle prevails and in others the evil, is really\nsaying nothing more than that good exists here and evil there. It\ndoes not further the argument one step, nor give anything like an\nexplanation. For it must always be borne in mind that the whole question\nrespecting the Origin of Evil proceeds upon the assumption of a wise,\nbenevolent and powerful Being having created the world. The difficulty,\nand the only difficulty, is, how to reconcile existing evil with such\na Being\u2019s attributes; and if the Manichean only explains this by saying\nthe good Being did what is good, and another and evil Being did what is\nbad in the universe, he really tells us nothing more than the fact; he\ndoes not apply his explanation to the difficulty; and he supposes the\nexistence of a second Deity gratuitously and to no kind of purpose.\n\nBut, _thirdly_, in whatever light we view the hypothesis, it seems\nexposed to a similar objection, namely, of explaining nothing in its\napplication, while it is wholly gratuitous in itself. It assumes, of\ncourse, that creation was the act of the good Being; and it also assumes\nthat Being\u2019s goodness to have been perfect, though his power is limited.\nThen as he must have known the existence of the evil principle and\nforeseen the certainty of misery being occasioned by his existence, why\ndid he voluntarily create sentient beings, to put them, in some respects\nat least, under the evil one\u2019s power, and thus be exposed to suffering?\nThe good Being, according to this theory, is the remote cause of the\nevil which is endured, because but for his act of creation the evil\nBeing could have had, no subjects whereon to work mischief; so that\nthe hypothesis wholly fails in removing, by more than one step, the\ndifficulty which it was invented to solve.\n\n_Fourthly_, there is no advantage gained to the argument by supposing\ntwo Beings, rather than one Being of a mixed nature. The facts lead\nto this supposition just as naturally as to the hypothesis of two\nprinciples. The existence of the evil Being is as much a detraction from\nthe power of the good one, as if we only at once suppose the latter to\nbe of limited power, and that he prefers making and supporting creatures\nwho suffer much less than they enjoy, to making no creatures at all. The\nsupposition that he made them as happy as he could, and that not being\nable to make them less miserable, he yet perceived that upon the whole\ntheir existence would occasion more happiness than if they never had\nany being at all, will just account for the phenomena as well as\nthe Manichean theory, and will as little as that theory assume any\nmalevolence in the power which created and preserved the universe. If,\nhowever, it be objected that this hypothesis leaves unexplained the\nfetters upon the good Being\u2019s power, the answer is obvious; it leaves\nthose fetters not at all less explained than the Manichean theory does;\nfor that theory gives no explanation of the existence of a counteracting\nprinciple, and it assumes both an antagonistic power, to limit the\nDeity\u2019s power, and a malevolent principle to set the antagonistic power\nin motion; whereas our supposition assumes no malevolence at all, but\nonly a restraint upon the divine power.\n\n_Fifthly_, this leads us to another and most formidable objection.\nTo conceive the eternal existence of one Being infinite in power,\n\u201cself-created and creating all others,\u201d is by no means impossible.\nIndeed, as everything must have had a cause, nothing we see being\nby possibility self-created, we naturally mount from particulars to\ngenerals, until finally we rise to the idea of a first cause, uncreated,\nand self-existing, and eternal. If the phenomena compels us to affix\nlimits to his goodness, we find it impossible to conceive limits to\nthe power of a creative, eternal, self-existing principle. But even\nsupposing we could form the conception of such a Being having his power\nlimited as well as his goodness, still we can conceive no second Being\nindependent of him. This would necessarily lead to the supposition\nof some third Being, above and antecedent to both, and the creator of\nboth--the real first cause--and then the whole question would be to\nsolve over again,--Why these two antagonistic Beings were suffered to\nexist by the great Being of all?\n\nThe Manichean doctrine, then, is exposed to every objection to which\na theory can be obnoxious. It is gratuitous; it is inapplicable to the\nfacts; it supposes more causes than are necessary; it fails to explain\nthe phenomena, leaving the difficulties exactly where it found them.\nNevertheless, such is the theory, how easily soever refuted when openly\navowed and explicitly stated, which in various disguises appears to\npervade the explanations, given of the facts by most of the other\nsystems; nay, to form, secretly and unacknowledged, their principal\nground-work. For it really makes very little difference in the matter\nwhether we are to account for evil by holding that the Deity has created\nas much happiness as was consistent with \u201cthe nature of things,\u201d and\nhas taken every means of avoiding all evil except \u201cwhere it necessarily\nexisted\u201d or at once give those limiting influences a separate and\nindependent existence, and call them by a name of their own, which is\nthe Manichean hypothesis.\n\nThe most remarkable argument on this subject, and the most distinguished\nboth for its clear and well ordered statement, and for the systematic\nshape which it assumes, is that of Archbishop King. It is the great\ntext-book of those who study this subject; and like the famous legal\nwork of Littleton, it has found an expounder yet abler and more learned\nthan the author himself. Bishop Law\u2019s commentary is full of information,\nof reasoning and of explication; nor can we easily find anything\nvaluable upon the subject which is not contained in the volumes of\nthat work. It will, however, only require a slight examination of the\ndoctrines maintained by these learned and pious men, to satisfy us that\nthey all along either assume the thing to be proved, or proceed\nupon suppositions quite inconsistent with the infinite power of the\nDeity--the only position which raises a question, and which makes the\ndifficulty that requires to be solved.\n\nAccording to all the systems as well as this one, evil is of two\nkinds--physical and moral. To the former class belong all the sufferings\nto which sentient beings are exposed from the qualities and affections\nof matter independent of their own acts; the latter class consists of\nthe sufferings of whatever kind which arise from their own conduct. This\ndivision of the subject, however, is liable to one serious objection;\nit comprehends under the second head a class of evils which ought more\nproperly to be ranged under the first. Nor is this a mere question of\nclassification: it affects the whole scope of the argument. The second\nof the above-mentioned classes comprehends both the physical evils which\nhuman agency causes, but which it would have no power to cause unless\nthe qualities of matter were such as to produce pain, privation and\ndeath; and also the moral evil of guilt which may possibly exist\nindependent of material agency, but which, whether independent or not\nupon that physical action, is quite separable from it, residing wholly\nin the mind. Thus a person who destroys the life of another produces\nphysical evil by means of the constitution of matter, and moral evil\nis the source of his wicked action. The true arrangement then is this:\nPhysical evil is that which depends on the constitution of matter,\nor only is so far connected with the constitution of mind as that the\nnature and existence of a sentient being must be assumed in order to its\nmischief being felt. And this physical evil is of two kinds; that which\noriginates in human action, and that which is independent of human\naction, befalling us from the unalterable course of nature. Of the\nformer class are the pains, privations and destruction inflicted by men\none upon another; of the latter class are diseases, old age and death.\nMoral evil consists in the crimes, whether of commission or omission,\nwhich men are guilty of--including under the latter head those\nsufferings which we endure from ill-regulated minds through want of\nfortitude or self-control. It is clear that as far as the question\nof the origin of evil is concerned, the first of these two classes,\nphysical evil, depends upon the properties of matter, and the last\nupon those of mind. The second as well as the first subdivision of the\nphysical class depends upon matter; because, however ill-disposed the\nagent\u2019s mind may be, he could inflict the mischief only in consequence\nof the constitution of matter. Therefore, the Being, who created matter\nenabled him to perpetrate the evil, even admitting that this Being did\nnot, by creating the mind also give rise to the evil disposition; and\nadmitting that, as far as regards this disposition it has the same\norigin with the evil of the second class, or moral evil, the acts of a\nrational agent.\n\nIt is quite true that many reasoners refuse to allow any distinction\nbetween the evil produced by natural causes and the evils caused by\nrational agents, whether as regards their own guilt, or the mischief it\ncaused to others. Those reasoners deny that the creation of man\u2019s will\nand the endowing it with liberty explains anything; they hold that the\ncreation of a mind whose will is to do evil, amounts to the same thing,\nand belongs to the same class, with the creation of matter whose nature\nis to give pain and misery. But this position, which involves\nthe doctrine of necessity, must, at the very least, admit of one\nmodification. Where no human agency whatever is interposed, and the\ncalamity comes without any one being to blame for it, the mischief seems\na step, and a large step, nearer the creative or the superintending\ncause, because it is, as far as men go, altogether inevitable. The main\ntendency of the argument, therefore, is confined to physical evil; and\nthis has always been found the most difficult to account for, that is to\nreconcile with the government of a perfectly good and powerful Being.\nIt would indeed be very easily explained, and the reconcilement would be\nreadily made, if we were at liberty to suppose matter independent in\nits existence, and in certain qualities, of the divine control; but this\nwould be to suppose the Deity\u2019s power limited and imperfect, which is\njust one horn of the Epicurean dilemma, _\u201cAut vult et non potest;\u201d_ and\nin assuming this, we do not so much beg the question as wholly give it\nup and admit we cannot solve the difficulty. Yet obvious as this is, we\nshall presently see that the reasoners who have undertaken the solution,\nand especially King and Law, under such phrases as \u201cthe nature of\nthings,\u201d and \u201cthe laws of the material universe,\u201d have been constantly,\nthrough the whole argument, guilty of this _petitio principii_ (begging\nthe question), or rather this abandonment of the whole question, and\nnever more so than at the very moment when they complacently plumed\nthemselves upon having overcome the difficulty.\n\nHaving premised these observations for the purpose of clearing the\nground and avoiding confusion in the argument, we may now consider that\nArchbishop King\u2019s theory is in both its parts; for there are in truth\ntwo distinct explanations, the one resembling an argument _a priori_,\nthe other an argument _a posteriori_. It is, however, not a little\nremarkable that Bishop Law, in the admirable abstract or analysis which\nhe gives of the Archbishop\u2019s treatise at the end of his preface, begins\nwith the second branch, omitting all mention of the first, as if he\nconsidered it to be merely introductory matter; and yet his fourteenth\nnote (t. cap. I s. 3.) shows that he was aware of its being an argument\nwholly independent of the rest of the reasonings; for he there says\nthat the author had given one demonstration _a priori_, and that no\ndifficulties raised by an examination of the phenomena, no objection _a\nposteriori_, ought to overrule it, unless these difficulties are equally\ncertain and clear with the demonstration, and admit of no solution\nconsistent with that demonstration.\n\nThe necessity of a first cause being shown, and it being evident that\ntherefore this cause is uncreated and self-existent, and independent of\nany other, the conclusion is next drawn that its power must be infinite.\nThis is shown by the consideration that there is no other antecedent\ncause, and no other principle which was not created by the first cause,\nand consequently which was not of inferior power; therefore, there is\nnothing which can limit the power of the first cause; and there being no\nlimiter or restrainer, there can be no limitation or restriction.\n\nAgain, the infinity of the Deity\u2019s power is attempted to be proved in\nanother way.\n\nThe number of possible things is infinite; but every possibility implies\na power to do the possible thing; and as one possible thing implies\na power to do it, an infinite number of possible things implies an\ninfinite power. Or as Descartes and his followers put it, we can have no\nidea of anything that has not either an actual or a possible existence;\nbut we have an idea of a Being of infinite perfection; therefore,\nhe must actually exist; for otherwise there would be one perfection\nwanting, and so he would not be infinite, which he either is actually\nor possibly. It is needless to remark that this whole argument, whatever\nmay be said of the former one, is a pure fallacy, and a _petitio\nprincipii_ throughout. The Cartesian form of it is the most glaringly\nfallacious, and indeed exposes itself; for by that reasoning we might\nprove the existence of a fiery dragon or any other phantom of the brain.\nBut even King\u2019s more concealed sophism is equally absurd. What ground\nis there for saying that the number of possible things is infinite? He\nadds, \u201cat least in power,\u201d which means either nothing or only that we\nhave the power of conceiving an infinite number of possibilities. But\nbecause we can conceive or fancy an infinity of possibilities, does it\nfollow that there actually exists this infinity? The whole argument is\nunworthy of a moment\u2019s consideration. The other is more plausible,\nthat restriction implies a restraining power. But even this is not\nsatisfactory when closely examined. For although the first cause must\nbe self-existent and of eternal duration, we only are driven by the\nnecessity of supposing a cause whereon all the argument rests, to\nsuppose one capable of causing all that actually exists; and, therefore,\nto extend this inference and suppose that the cause is of infinite power\nseems gratuitous. Nor is it necessary to suppose another power limiting\nits efficacy, if we do not find it necessary to suppose its own\nconstitution and essence such as we term infinitely powerful. However,\nafter noticing this manifest defect in the fundamental part of the\nargument, that which infers infinite power, let us for the present\nassume the position to be proved either by these or by any other\nreasons, and see if the structure raised upon it is such as can stand\nthe test of examination.\n\nThus, then, an infinitely powerful Being exists, and he was the creator\nof the universe; but to incline him towards the creation there could be\nno possible motive of happiness to himself, and he must, says King, have\neither sought his own happiness or that of the universe which he made.\nTherefore his own ideas must have been the communication of happiness to\nthe creature. He could only desire to exercise his attributes without,\nor eternally to himself, which before creating other beings he could not\ndo. But this could only gratify his nature, which wants nothing, being\nperfect in itself, by communicating his goodness and providing for the\nhappiness of other sentient beings created by him for this purpose.\nTherefore, says King, \u201cit manifestly follows that the world is as\nwell as it could be made by infinite power and goodness; for since the\nexercise of the divine power and the communication of his goodness are\nthe ends, for which the world is formed, there is no doubt but God\nhas attained these ends.\u201d And again, \u201cIf then anything inconvenient or\nincommodious be now, or was from the beginning in it, that certainly\ncould not be hindered or removed even by infinite power, wisdom and\ngoodness.\u201d\n\nNow certainly no one can deny, that if God be infinitely powerful and\nalso infinitely good, it must follow that whatever looks like evil,\neither is not really evil, or that it is such as infinite power could\nnot avoid. This is implied in the very terms of the hypothesis. It may\nalso be admitted that if the Deity\u2019s only object in his dispensation be\nthe happiness of his creatures, the same conclusion follows even without\nassuming his nature to be infinitely good; for we admit what, for the\npurpose of the argument, is the same thing, namely, that there entered\nno evil into his design in creating or maintaining the universe. But\nall this really assumes the very thing to be proved. King gets over the\ndifficulty and reaches his conclusion by saying, \u201cThe Deity could\nhave only one of two objects--his own happiness or that of his\ncreatures.\u201d--The skeptic makes answer, \u201cHe might have another object,\nnamely, the misery of his creatures;\u201d and then the whole question is,\nwhether or not he had this other object; or, which is the same thing,\nwhether or not his nature is perfectly good. It must never be forgotten\nthat unless evil exists there is nothing to dispute about--the question\nfalls. The whole difficulty arises from the admission that evil exists,\nor what we call evil, exists. From this we inquire whether or not the\nauthor of it can be perfectly benevolent? or if he be, with what view he\nhas created it? This assumes him to be infinitely powerful, or at\nleast powerful enough to have prevented the evil; but indeed we are now\narguing with the Archbishop on the supposition that he has proved the\nDeity to be of infinite power. The skeptic rests upon his dilemma, and\neither alternative, limited power or limited goodness, satisfies him.\n\nIt is quite plain, therefore, that King has assumed the thing to be\nproved in his first argument, or argument _a priori_. For he proceeds\nupon the postulates that the Deity is infinitely good, and that he only\nhad human happiness in view when he made the world. Either supposition\nwould have served his purpose; and making either would have been taking\nfor granted the whole matter in dispute. But he has assumed both; and\nit must be added, he has made his assumption of both as if he was only\nlaying down a single position. This part of the work is certainly more\nslovenly than the rest. It is the third section of the first chapter.\n\nIt is certainly not from any reluctance to admit the existence of evil\nthat the learned author and his able commentator have been led into this\ninconclusive course of reasoning. We shall nowhere find more striking\nexpositions of the state of things in this respect, nor more gloomy\ndescriptions of our condition, than in their celebrated work. \u201cWhence\nso many, inaccuracies,\u201d says the Archbishop, \u201cin the work of a most good\nand powerful God? Whence that perpetual war between the very elements,\nbetween animals, between men? Whence errors, miseries and vices, the\nconstant companions of human life from its infancy? Whence good to evil\nmen, evil to the good? If we behold anything irregular in the work\nof men, if any machine serves not the end it was made for, if we find\nsomething in it repugnant to itself or others, we attribute that to\nthe ignorance, impatience or malice of the workman. But since these\nqualities have no place in God, how come they to have place in anything?\nOr why does God suffer his works to be deformed by them?\u201d--Chap. ii. s.\n3. Bishop Law, in his admirable preface, still more cogently puts the\ncase: \u201cWhen I inquire how I got into the world, and came to be what\nI am, I am told that an absolutely perfect being produced me out of\nnothing, and placed me here on purpose to communicate some part of his\nhappiness to me, and to make me in some manner like himself. This end is\nnot obtained--the direct contrary appears--I find myself surrounded with\nnothing but perplexity, want and misery--by whose fault I know not--how\nto better myself I cannot tell. What notions of good and goodness can\nthis afford me? What ideas of religion? What hopes of a future state?\nFor if God\u2019s aim in producing me be entirely unknown, if it be either\nhis glory (as some will have it), which my present state is far from\nadvancing, nor mine own good, which the same is equally inconsistent\nwith, how know I what I have to do here, or indeed in what manner I must\nendeavor to please him? Or why should I endeavor it at all? For if I\nmust be miserable in this world, what security have I that I shall not\nbe so in another too (if there be one), since if it were the will of\nmy Almighty Creator, I might (for aught I see) have been happy in\nboth.\u201d--Pref. viii. The question thus is stated. The difficulty is\nraised in its full and formidable magnitude by both these learned and\nable men; that they have signally failed to lay it by the argument _a\npriori_ is plain. Indeed, it seems wholly impossible ever to answer by\nan argument _a priori_ any objection whatever which arises altogether\nout of the facts made known to us by experience alone, and which are\ntherefore in the nature of contingent truths, resting upon contingent\nevidence, while all demonstrations _a priori_ must necessarily proceed\nupon mathematical truths. Let us now see if their labors have been more\nsuccessful in applying to the solution of the difficulty the reasoning\n_a posteriori._\n\nArchbishop King divides evil into three kinds--imperfection, natural\nevil and moral evil--including under the last head all the physical\nevils that arise from human actions, as well as the evils which consists\nin the guilt of those actions.\n\nThe existence of imperfection is stated to be necessary, because\neverything which is created and not self-existent must be imperfect;\nconsequently every work of the Deity, in other words, everything but\nthe Deity himself, must have imperfection in its nature. Nor is the\nexistence of some beings which are imperfect any interference with\nthe attributes of others. Nor the existence of beings with many\nimperfections any interference with others having pre-eminence. The\ngoodness of the Deity therefore is not impugned by the existence of\nvarious orders of created beings more or less approaching to perfection.\nHis creating none at all would have left the universe less admirable and\ncontaining less happiness than it now does. Therefore, the act of mere\nbenevolence which called those various orders into existence is not\nimpeached in respect of goodness any more than of power by the variety\nof the attributes possessed by the different beings created.\n\nHe now proceeds to grapple with the real difficulty of the question. And\nit is truly astonishing to find this acute metaphysician begin with an\nassumption which entirely begs that question. As imperfection, says he,\narises from created beings having been made out of nothing, so natural\nevils arise \u201cfrom all natural things having a relation to matter, and\non this account being necessarily subject to natural evil.\u201d As long as\nmatter is subject to motion, it must be the subject of generation and\ncorruption. \u201cThese and all other natural evils,\u201d says the author, \u201care\nso necessarily connected with the material origin of things that they\ncannot be separated from it, and thus the structure of the world either\nought not to have been formed at all, or these evils must have been\ntolerated without any imputation on the divine power and goodness.\u201d\n Again, he says, \u201ccorruption could not be avoided without violence done\nto the laws of motion and the nature of matter.\u201d Again, \u201cAll manner\nof inconveniences could not be avoided because of the imperfection of\nmatter and the nature of motion. That state of things were therefore\npreferable which was attained with the fewest and the least\ninconveniences.\u201d Then follows a kind of menace, \u201cAnd who but a very\nrash, indiscreet person will affirm that God has not made choice of\nthis?\u201d--when every one must perceive that the bare propounding of the\nquestion concerning evil calls upon us to exercise this temerity and\ncommit this indiscretion.--Chap. iv. s. I, div. 7. He then goes into\nmore detail as to particular cases of natural evil; but all are handled\nin the same way. Thus death is explained by saying that the bodies of\nanimals are a kind of vessels which contain fluids in motion, and being\nbroken, the fluids are spilt and the motions cease; \u201cbecause by the\nnative imperfection of matter it is capable of dissolution, and the\nspilling and stagnation must necessarily follow, and with it animal life\nmust cease.\u201d--Chap. iv. s. 3. Disease is dealt with in like manner. \u201cIt\ncould not be avoided unless animals had been made of a quite different\nframe and constitution.\u201d--Chap. iv. s. 7. The whole reasoning is summed\nup in the concluding section of this part, where the author somewhat\ntriumphantly says, \u201cThe difficult question then, whence comes evil? is\nnot unanswerable. For it arises from the very nature and\nconstitution of created beings, and could not be avoided without a\ncontradiction.\u201d--Chap. iv. s. 9. To this the commentary of Bishop Law\nadds (Note 4i), \u201cthat natural evil has been shown to be, in every case,\nunavoidable, without introducing into the system a greater evil.\u201d\n\nIt is certain that many persons, led away by the authority of a great\nname, have been accustomed to regard this work as a text-book, and have\nappealed to Archbishop King and his learned commentator as having solved\nthe question. So many men have referred to the _Principia_ as showing\nthe motions of the heavenly bodies, who never read, or indeed could\nread, a page of that immortal work. But no man ever did open it who\ncould read it and find himself disappointed in any one particular;\nthe whole demonstration is perfect; not a link is wanting; nothing is\nassumed. How different the case here! We open the work of the prelate\nand find it from the first to last a chain of gratuitous assumptions,\nand, of the main point, nothing whatever is either proved or explained.\nEvil arises, he says, from the nature of matter. Who doubts it? But is\nnot the whole question why matter was created with such properties as\nof necessity to produce evil? It was impossible, says he, to avoid it\nconsistently with the laws of motion and matter. Unquestionably; but\nthe whole dispute is upon those laws. If indeed the laws of nature, the\nexisting constitution of the material world, were assumed as necessary,\nand as binding upon the Deity, how is it possible that any question ever\ncould have been raised? The Deity having the power to make those laws,\nto endow matter with that constitution, and having also the power to\nmake different laws and to give matter another constitution, the whole\nquestion is, how his choosing to create the present existing order of\nthings--the laws and the constitution which we find to prevail--can be\nreconciled with perfect goodness. The whole argument of the Archbishop\nassumes that matter and its laws are independent of the Deity; and the\nonly conclusion to which the inquiry leads us is that the Creator has\nmade a world with as little of evil in it as the nature of things,--that\nis, as the laws of nature and matter--allowed him; which is nonsense,\nif those laws were made by him, and leaves the question where it was, or\nrather solves it by giving up the omnipotence of the Creator, if these\nlaws were binding upon him.\n\nIt must be added, however, that Dr. King and Dr. Law are not singular in\npursuing this most inconclusive course of reasoning.\n\nThus Dr. J. Clarke, in his treatise on natural evil, quoted by Bishop\nLaw (Note 32), shows how mischiefs arise from the laws of matter; and\nsays this could not be avoided \u201cwithout altering those primary laws,\ni. e., making it something else than what it is, or changing it into\nanother form; the result of which would only be to render it liable to\nevils of another kind against which the same objections would equally\nlie.\u201d So Dr. J. Burnett, in his discourses on evil, at the Boyle Lecture\n(vol. ii. P. 201), conceives that he explains death by saying that the\nmaterials of which the body is composed \u201ccannot last beyond seventy\nyears, or thereabouts, and it was originally intended that we should die\nat that age.\u201d Pain, too, he imagines is accounted for by observing that\nwe are endowed with feelings, and that if we could not feel pain,\nso neither could we pleasure (p. 202). Again, he says that there are\ncertain qualities which \u201cin the nature of things matter is incapable of\u201d\n (p. 207). And as if he really felt the pressure of this difficulty, he\nat length comes to this conclusion, that life is a free gift, which we\nhad no right to exact, and which the Deity lay under no necessity to\ngrant, and therefore we must take it with the conditions annexed (p.\n210); which is undeniably true, but is excluding the discussion and\nnot answering the question proposed. Nor must it be forgotten that\nsome reasoners deal strangely with the facts. Thus Derham, in his\n_Physico-Theology_, explaining the use of poison in snakes, first\ndesires us to bear in mind that many venomous ones are of use\nmedicinally in stubborn diseases, which is not true, and if it were,\nwould prove nothing, unless the venom, not the flesh, were proved to be\nmedicinal; and then says, they are \u201cscourges upon ungrateful and sinful\nmen;\u201d adding the truly astounding absurdity, \u201cthat the nations which\nknow not God are the most annoyed with noxious reptiles and other\npernicious creatures.\u201d (Book ix. c. I); which if it were true would\nraise a double difficulty, by showing that one people was scourged\nbecause another had neglected to preach the gospel among them. Dr. J.\nBurnett, too, accounts for animals being suffered to be killed as food\nfor man, by affirming that they thereby gain all the care which man is\nthus led to bestow upon them, and so are, on the whole, the better for\nbeing eaten. (Boyle Lecture, II. 207). But the most singular error has\nperhaps been fallen into by Dr. Sherlock, and the most, unhappy--which\nyet Bishop Law has cited as a sufficient answer to the objection\nrespecting death: \u201cIt is a great instrument of government, and makes men\nafraid of committing such villanies as the laws of their country have\nmade capital.\u201d (Note 34). So that the greatest error in the criminal\nlegislation of all countries forms part of the divine providence, and\nman has at length discovered, by the light of reason, the folly and\nthe wickedness of using an instrument expressly created by divine\nOmniscience to be abused!\n\nThe remaining portion of King\u2019s work, filling the second volume of\nBishop Law\u2019s edition, is devoted to the explanation of Moral Evil; and\nhere the gratuitous assumption of the \u201cnature of things,\u201d and the \u201claws\nof nature,\u201d more or less pervade the whole as in the former parts of the\nInquiry.\n\nThe fundamental position of the whole is, that man having been endowed\nwith free will, his happiness consists in making due elections, or in\nthe right exercise of that free will. Five causes are then given of\nundue elections, in which of course his misery consists as far as that\ndepends on himself; these causes are error, negligence, over-indulgence\nof free choice, obstinacy or bad habit, and the importunity of natural\nappetites; which last, it must in passing be remarked, belongs to the\nhead of physical evil, and cannot be assumed in this discussion without\nbegging the question. The great difficulty is then stated and grappled\nwith, namely, how to reconcile these undue elections with divine\ngoodness. The objector states that free will might exist without the\npower of making undue elections, he being suffered to range, as it were,\nonly among lawful objects of choice. But the answer to this seems sound,\nthat such a will would only be free in name; it would be free to choose\namong certain things, but would not be free-will. The objector again\nurges, that either the choice is free and may fall upon evil objects,\nagainst the goodness of God, or it is so restrained as only to fall on\ngood objects. Against freedom of the will King\u2019s solution is, that\nmore evil would result from preventing these undue elections than from\nsuffering them, and so the Deity has only done the best he could in the\ncircumstances; a solution obviously liable to the same objection as that\nrespecting Natural Evil. There are three ways, says the Archbishop, in\nwhich undue elections might have been prevented; not creating a free\nagent--constant interference with his free-will--removing him to another\nstate where he would not be tempted to go astray in his choice. A fourth\nmode may, however, be suggested--creating a free-agent without any\ninclination to evil, or any temptation from external objects. When\nour author disposes of the second method, by stating that it assumes a\nconstant miracle, as great in the moral as altering the course of the\nplanets hourly would be in the material universe, nothing can be more\nsound or more satisfactory. But when he argues that our whole happiness\nconsists in a consciousness of freedom of election, and that we should\nnever know happiness were we restrained in any particular, it seems\nwholly inconceivable how he should have omitted to consider the\nprodigious comfort of a state in which we should be guaranteed against\nany error or impropriety of choice; a state in which we should both\nbe unable to go astray and always feel conscious of that security. He,\nhowever, begs the question most manifestly in dealing with the two other\nmethods stated, by which undue elections might have been precluded. \u201cYou\nwould have freedom,\u201d says he, \u201cwithout any inclination to sin; but\nit may justly be doubted if this is possible _in the present state of\nthings_,\u201d (chap. v. s. 5, sub. 2); and again, in answering the question\nwhy God did not remove us into another state where no temptation could\nseduce us, he says: \u201cIt is plain that _in the present state of things_\nit is impossible for men to live without natural evils or the danger of\nsinning.\u201d (_Ib_.) Now the whole question arises upon the constitution of\nthe present state of things. If that is allowed to be inevitable, or is\ntaken as a datum in the discussion, there ceases to be any question at\nall.\n\nThe doctrine of a chain of being is enlarged upon, and with much\nfelicity of illustration. But it only wraps up the difficulty in other\nwords, without solving it. For then the question becomes this--Why did\nthe Deity create such a chain as could not be filled up without misery?\nIt is, indeed, merely restating the fact of evil existing; for whether\nwe say there is suffering among sentient beings--or the universe\nconsists of beings more or less happy, more or less miserable--or there\nexists a chain of beings varying in perfection and in felicity--it is\nmanifestly all one proposition. The remark of Bayle upon this view of\nthe subject is really not at all unsound, and is eminently ingenious:\n\u201cWould you defend a king who should confine all his subjects of a\ncertain age in dungeons, upon the ground that if he did not, many of the\ncells he had built must remain empty?\u201d The answer of Bishop Law to this\nremark is by no means satisfactory. He says it assumes that more misery\nthan happiness exists. Now, in this view of the question, the balance is\nquite immaterial. The existence of any evil at all raises the question\nas much as the preponderance of evil over good, because the question\nconceives a perfectly good Being, and asks how such a Being can have\npermitted any evil at all. Upon this part of the subject both King\nand Law have fallen into an error which recent discoveries place in a\nsingularly clear light. They say that the argument they are dealing with\nwould lead to leaving the earth to the brutes without human inhabitants.\nBut the recent discoveries in Fossil Osteology have proved that the\nearth, for ages before the last 5,000 or 6,000 years, was left to the\nlower animals; nay, that in a still earlier period of its existence no\nanimal life at all was maintained upon its surface. So that, in fact,\nthe foundation is removed of the _reductio ad absurdum_ attempted by the\nlearned prelates.\n\nA singular argument is used towards the latter end of the inquiry.\nWhen the Deity, it is said, resolved to create other beings, He must of\nnecessity tolerate imperfect natures in his handiwork, just as he must\nthe equality of a circle\u2019s radii when he drew a circle. Who does not\nperceive the difference? The meaning of the word circle is that the\nradii are all equal; this equality is a necessary truth. But it is not\nshown that men could not exist without the imperfections they labor\nunder. Yet this is the argument suggested by these authors while\ncomplaining (chap. v. s. 5, sub. 7, div. 7), that Lactantius had not\nsufficiently answered the Epicurean dilemma; it is the substitute\npropounded to supply that father\u2019s deficiency.--\u201cWhen, therefore,\u201d says\nthe Archbishop, \u201cmatter, motion and free-will are constituted, the Deity\nmust necessarily permit corruption of things and the abuse of\nliberty, or something worse, for these cannot be separated without a\ncontradiction, and God is no more important, because he cannot separate\nequality of radii from a circle.\u201d--Chap. v. s. 5, subs. 7. If he could\nnot have created evil, he would not have been omnipotent; if he would\nnot, he must let his power lie idle; and rejecting evil have\nrejected all the good. \u201cThus,\u201d exclaims the author with triumph and\nself-complacency, \u201cthen vanishes this Herculean argument which induced\nthe Epicureans to discard the good Deity, and the Manicheans to\nsubstitute an evil one.\u201d (_Ib._ subs. 7, _sub. fine._) Nor is the\nexplanation rendered more satisfactory, or indeed more intelligible,\nby the concluding passage of all, in which we are told that \u201cfrom a\nconflict of two properties, namely, omnipotence and goodness, evils\nnecessarily arise. These attributes amicably conspire together, and yet\nrestrain and limit each other.\u201d It might have been expected from hence\nthat no evil at all should be found to exist. \u201cThere is a kind of\nstruggle and opposition between them, whereof the evils in nature bear\nthe shadow and resemblance. Here, then, and no where else, mar we find\nthe primary and most certain rise and origin of evils.\u201d\n\nSuch is this celebrated work; and it may safely be affirmed that a more\ncomplete failure to overcome a great and admitted difficulty--a more\nunsatisfactory solution of an important question--is not to be found in\nthe whole history of metaphysical science.\n\nAmong the authors who have treated of this subject, a high place is\njustly given to Archdeacon Bulguy, whose work on _Divine Benevolence_ is\nalways referred to by Dr. Paley with great commendation. But certain it\nis that this learned and pious writer either had never formed to himself\na very precise notion of the real question under discussion, namely, the\ncompatibility of the appearances which we see and which we consider as\nevil, with a Being infinitely powerful as well as good; or he had in his\nmind some opinions respecting the divine nature, opinions of a limitary\nkind, which he does not state distinctly, although he constantly suffers\nthem to influence his seasonings. Hence, whenever he comes close to the\nreal difficulty he appears to beg the question. A very few instances\nof what really pervades the whole work will suffice to show how\nunsatisfactory its general scope is, although it contains, like\nthe treatise of Dr. King and Dr. Law\u2019s Commentary, many valuable\nobservations on the details of the subject.\n\nAnd first we may perceive that what he terms a _\u201cprevious remark,\u201d_ and\ndesires the reader \u201cto carry along through the whole proof of divine\nbenevolence,\u201d really contains a statement that _the difficulty is to be\nevaded and not met._ \u201cAn intention of producing good,\u201d says he, \u201cwill be\nsufficiently apparent in any particular instance if the thing considered\ncan neither be changed nor taken away without loss or harm, _all other\nthings continuing the same._ Should you suppose _various_ things in the\nsystem changed _at once_, you can neither judge of the possibility\nnor the consequences of the changes, having no degree of experience to\ndirect you.\u201d Now assuredly this postulate makes the whole question as\neasy a one as ever metaphysician or naturalist had to solve. For it is\nno longer--Why did a powerful and benevolent Being create a world in\nwhich there is evil--but only--The world being given, how far are its\ndifferent arrangements consistent with one another? According to this,\nthe earthquake at Lisbon, Voltaire\u2019s favorite instance, destroyed\nthousands of persons, because it is in the nature of things that\nsubterraneous vapors should explode, and that when houses fall on human\nbeings they should be killed. Then if Dr. Balguy goes to his other\nargument, on which he often dwells, that if this nature were altered,\nwe cannot possibly tell whether worse might not ensue; this, too, is\nassuming a limited power in the Deity, contrary to the hypothesis.\nIt may most justly be said, that if there be any one supposition\nnecessarily excluded from the whole argument, it is the fundamental\nsupposition of the \u201cprevious remark,\u201d namely, \u201call other things\ncontinuing the same.\u201d\n\nBut see how this assumption pervades and paralyzes the whole argument,\nrendering it utterly inconclusive. The author is to answer an objection\nderived from the constitution of our appetites for food, and his reply\nis, that \u201cwe cannot tell how far it was _possible_ for the stomachs and\npalates of animals to be differently formed, unless by some remedy worse\nthan the disease.\u201d Again, upon the question of pain: \u201cHow do we know\nthat it was _possible_ for the uneasy sensation to be confined to\nparticular cases?\u201d So we meet the same fallacy under another form,\nas evil being the result of \u201cgeneral principles.\u201d But no one has ever\npushed this so far as Dr. Balguy, for he says, \u201cthat in a government so\nconducted, many events are likely to happen contrary to the intention\nof its author.\u201d He now calls in the aid of chance, or accident.--\u201cIt is\nprobable,\u201d he says, \u201cthat God should be good, for evil is more likely\nto be _accidental_ than appears from experience in the conduct of men.\u201d\n Indeed, his fundamental position of the Deity\u2019s benevolence is rested\nupon this foundation, that \u201cpleasures only were intended, and that\nthe pains are accidental consequences, although the means of producing\npleasures.\u201d The same recourse to accident is repeatedly had. Thus, \u201cthe\nevents to which we are exposed in this imperfect state appear to be the\n_accidental_, not natural, effects of our frame and condition.\u201d Now can\nany one thing be more manifest than that the very first notion of a wise\nand powerful Being excludes all such assumptions as things happening\ncontrary to His intention; and that when we use the word chance or\naccident, which only means our human ignorance of causes, we at once\ngive up the whole question, as if we said, \u201cIt is a subject about\nwhich we know nothing.\u201d So again as to power. \u201cA good design is more\n_difficult_ to be executed, and therefore more likely to be executed\n_imperfectly_, than an evil one, that is, with a mixture of effects\nforeign to the design and opposite to it.\u201d This at once assumes the\nDeity to be powerless. But a general statement is afterwards made more\ndistinctly to the same effect. \u201cMost sure it is that he can do all\nthings possible. But are we in any degree competent judges of the bounds\nof possibility?\u201d So again under another form nature is introduced as\nsomething different from its author, and offering limits to his\npower. \u201cIt is plainly not the method of nature to obtain her ends\ninstantaneously.\u201d Passing over such propositions as that \u201c_useless_ evil\nis a thing never seen,\u201d (when the whole question is why the same ends\nwere not attained without evil), and a variety of other subordinate\nassumptions contrary to the hypothesis, we may rest with this general\nstatement, which almost every page of Dr. Balguy\u2019s book bears out, that\nthe question which he has set himself to solve is anything rather than\nthe real one touching the Origin of Evil; and that this attempt at\na solution is as ineffectual as any of those which we have been\nconsidering.\n\nIs, then, the question wholly incapable of solution, which all these\nlearned and ingenious men have so entirely failed in solving? Must\nthe difficulty remain forever unsurmounted, and only be approached to\ndiscover that it is insuperable? _Must the subject, of all others the\nmost interesting for us to know well, be to us always as a sealed book,\nof which we can never know anything?_ From the nature of the thing--from\nthe question relating to the operation of a power which, to our limited\nfaculties, must ever be incomprehensible--there seems too much reason\nfor believing that nothing precise or satisfactory ever will be attained\nby human reason regarding this great argument; and that the bounds\nwhich limit our views will only be passed when we have quitted the\nencumbrances of our mortal state, and are permitted to survey those\nregions beyond the sphere of our present circumscribed existence. The\nother branch of Natural Theology, that which investigates the evidences\nof Intelligence and Design, and leads us to a clear apprehension of the\nDeity\u2019s power and wisdom, is as satisfactorily cultivated as any other\ndepartment of science, rests upon the same species of proof, and affords\nresults as precise as they are sublime. This branch will never be\ndistinctly known, and will always so disappoint the inquirer as to\nrender the lights of Revelation peculiarly acceptable, although\neven those lights leave much of it still involved in darkness--still\nmysterious and obscure.[2]\n\nYet let us endeavor to suggest some possible explication, while we admit\nthat nothing certain, nothing entirely satisfactory can be reached. The\nfailure of the great writers whose works we have been contemplating may\nwell teach us humility, make us distrust ourselves, and moderate within\nus any sanguine hopes of success. But they should not make us wholly\ndespair of at least showing in what direction the solution of the\ndifficulty is to be sought, and whereabouts it will probably be found\nsituated, when our feeble reason shall be strengthened and expanded.\nFor one cause of their discomfiture certainly has been their aiming too\nhigh, attempting a complete solution of a problem which only admitted of\napproximation, and discussion of limits.\n\nIt is admitted on all hands that the demonstration is complete which\nshows the existence of intelligence and design in the universe. The\nstructure of the eye and ear in exact confirmity to the laws of optics\nand acoustics, shows as clearly as any experiment can show anything,\nthat the source, cause or origin is common both to the properties of\nlight and the formation of the lenses and retina in the eye--both to the\nproperties of sound and the tympanum, malleus, incus and stapes of the\near. No doubt whatever can exist upon the subject, any more than, if\nwe saw a particular order issued to a body of men to perform certain\nuncommon evolutions, and afterwards saw the same body performing those\nsame evolutions, we could doubt their having received the order. A\ndesigning and intelligent and skillful author of these admirably adapted\nworks is equally a clear inference from the same facts. We can no more\ndoubt it than we can question, when we see a mill grinding corn into\nflour, that the machinery was made by some one who designed by means of\nit to prepare the materials of bread. The same conclusions are drawn\nin a vast variety of other instances, both with respect to the parts\nof human and other bodies, and with respect to most of the other\narrangements of nature. Similar conclusions are also drawn from our\nconsciousness, and the knowledge which it gives us of the structure of\nthe mind.[3] Thus we find that attention quickens memory and enables us\nto recollect; and that habit renders all exertions and all acquisitions\neasy, beside having the effect of alleviating pain.\n\nBut when we carry our survey into other parts, whether of the natural\nor moral system, we cannot discover any design at all. We frequently\nperceive structures the use of which we know nothing about; parts of the\nanimal frame that apparently have no functions to perform--nay, that\nare the source of pain without yielding any perceptible advantage;\narrangements and movements of bodies which are of one particular kind,\nand yet we are quite at a loss to discern any reason why they might not\nhave been of many other descriptions; operations of nature that seem to\nserve no purpose whatever; and other operations and other arrangements,\nchosen equally without any beneficial view, and yet which often give\nrise to much apparent confusion and mischief. Now, the question is,\n_first_, whether in any one of these cases of arrangement and structures\nwith no visible object at all, we can for a moment suppose that there\nreally is no object answered, or only conceive that we have been\nunable to discover it? _Secondly_, whether in the cases where mischief\nsometimes is perceived, and no other purpose appears to be effected,\nwe do not almost as uniformly lay the blame on our own ignorance, and\nconclude, not that the arrangement was made without any design, and that\nmischief arises without any contriver, but that if we knew the whole\ncase we should find a design and contrivance, and also that the apparent\nmischief would sink into the general good? It is not necessary to admit,\nfor our present purpose, this latter proposition, though it brings us\ncloser to the matter in hand; it is sufficient for the present to admit,\nwhat no one doubts, that when a part of the body, for instance, is\ndiscovered, to which, like the spleen, we cannot assign any function in\nthe animal system, we never think of concluding that it is made for no\nuse, but only that we have as yet not been able to discover its use.\n\nNow, let us ask, why do we, without any hesitation whatever, or any\nexception whatever, always and immediately arrive at this\nconclusion respecting intelligence and design? Nothing could be more\nunphilosophical, nay, more groundless, than such a process of reasoning,\nif we had only been able to trace design in one or two instances; for\ninstance, if we found only the eye to show proofs of contrivance, it\nwould be wholly gratuitous, when we saw the ear, to assume that it was\nadapted to the nature of sound, and still more so, if, on examination,\nwe perceived it bore no perceptible relation to the laws of acoustics.\nThe proof of contrivance in one particular is nothing like a proof,\nnay, does not even furnish the least presumption of contrivance in other\nparticulars; because, _a priori_, it is just as easy to suppose one part\nof nature to be designed for a purpose, and another part, nay, all other\nparts, to be formed at random and without any contrivance, as to suppose\nthat the formation of the whole is governed by design. Why, then, do we,\ninvariably and undoubtedly, adopt the course of reasoning which has been\nmentioned, and never for a moment suspect anything to be formed without\nsome reason--some rational purpose? The only ground of this belief is,\nthat we have been able distinctly to trace design in so vast a majority\nof cases as leaves us no power of doubting that, if our faculties had\nbeen sufficiently powerful, or our investigation sufficiently diligent,\nwe should also have been able to trace it in those comparatively few\ninstances respecting which we still are in the dark.\n\nIt may be worth while to give a few instances of the ignorance in which\nwe once were of design in some important arrangements of nature, and\nof the knowledge which we now possess to show the purpose of their\nformation. Before Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s optical discoveries, we could not\ntell why the structure of the eye was so complex, and why several lenses\nand humors were required to form a picture of objects upon the retina.\nIndeed, until Dolland\u2019s subsequent discovery of the achromatic effect of\ncombining various glasses, and Mr. Blair\u2019s still more recent experiments\non the powers of different refracting media, we were not able distinctly\nto perceive the operation and use of the complicacy in the structure of\nthe eye. We now well understand its nature, and are able to comprehend\nhow that which had at one time, nay, for ages, seemed to be an\nunnecessary complexity; forms the most perfect of all optical\ninstruments, and according to the most certain laws of refraction and of\ndispersion.\n\nSo, too, we had observed for some centuries the forms of the orbits in\nwhich the heavenly bodies move, and we had found these to be ellipses\nwith a very small eccentricity. But why this was the form of those\norbits no one could even conjecture. If any person, the most deeply\nskilled in mathematical science, and the most internally convinced of\nthe universal prevalence of design and contrivance in the structure\nof the universe, had been asked what reason there was for the planets\nmoving in ellipses so, nearly approaching to circles, he could not\nhave given any good reason, at least beyond a guess. The force of\ngravitation, even admitting that to be, as it were, a condition of the\ncreation of matter, would have made those bodies revolve in ellipses\nof any degree of eccentricity just as well, provided the angle and the\nforce of projection had been varied. Then, why was this form rather,\nthan any other chosen? No one knew; yet no one doubted that there was\nample reason for it. Accordingly the sublime discoveries of Lagrange\nand La Place have shown us that this small eccentricity is one material\nelement in the formula by which it is shown that all the irregularities\nof the system are periodical, and that the deviation never can exceed a\ncertain amount on either hand.\n\nBut, again, while we are ignorant of this, perhaps the most sublime\ntruth in all science, we were always arguing as if the system had an\nimperfection, as if the disturbing forces of the different planets and\nthe sun, acting on one another, constantly changed the orbits of each\nplanet, and must, in a course of ages, work the destruction of the whole\nplanetary arrangement which we had contemplated with so great\nadmiration and with awe. It was deemed enough if we could show that\nthis derangement must be extremely slow, and that, therefore, the system\nmight last for many more ages without requiring any interposition of\nomnipotent skill to preserve it by rectifying its motions. Thus one of\nthe most celebrated writers above cited argues that, \u201cfrom the nature\nof gravitation and the concentricity of the orbits, the irregularities\nproduced are so slowly operated in contracting, dilating and inclining\nthose orbits, that the system may go on for many thousand years before\nany extraordinary interference becomes necessary in order to correct\nit.\u201d And Dr. Burnett adds, that \u201cthose small irregularities cast no\ndiscredit on the good contrivance of the whole.\u201d Nothing, however,\ncould cast greater discredit if it were as he supposed, and as all men\nprevious to the late discoveries supposed; it was only, they rather\nthink, a \u201csmall irregularity,\u201d which was every hour tending to the\ndestruction of the whole system, and which must have deranged or\nconfounded its whole structure long before it destroyed it. Yet now\nwe see that the wisdom, to which a thousand years are as one day, not\nsatisfied with constructing a fabric which might last for \u201cmany thousand\nyears without His interference,\u201d has so formed it that it may thus\nendure forever.\n\nNow if such be the grounds of our belief in the universal prevalence of\nDesign, and such the different lights which at different periods of\nour progress in science we possess upon this branch of the divine\ngovernment; if we undoubtingly believe that contrivance is universal\nonly because we can trace and comprehend it in a great majority of\ninstances, and if the number of exceptions to the rule is occasionally\ndiminished as our knowledge of the particulars is from time to time\nextended--may we not apply the same principle to the apprehension of\nBenevolent purpose, and infer from the number of instances in which we\nplainly perceive a good intention, that if we were better acquainted\nwith those cases in which a contrary intention is now apparent, we\nshould there, too, find the generally pervading character of Benevolence\nto prevail? Not only is this the manner in which we reason respecting\nthe Design of the Creator from examining his works; it is the manner in\nwhich we treat the conduct of our fellow-creatures. A man of the most\nextensive benevolence and strictest integrity in his general deportment\nhas done something equivocal; nay, something apparently harsh and cruel;\nwe are slow to condemn him; we give him credit for acting with a good\nmotive and for a righteous purpose; we rest satisfied that \u201cif we only\nknew everything he would come out blameless.\u201d This arises from a just\nand a sound view of human character, and its general consistency with\nitself. The same reasoning may surely be applied with all humility and\nreverence, to the works and the intentions of the great Being who has\nimplanted in our minds the principles which lead to that just and sound\nview of the deeds and motives of men.\n\nBut let the argument be rested upon our course of reasoning respecting\ndivine contrivance. The existence of Evil is in no case more apparent\nthan the existence of Disorder seems to be in many things. To go no\nfurther than the last example which has been given--the mathematician\ncould perceive the derangement in the planetary orbits, could\ndemonstrate that it must ensue from the mutual action of the heavenly\nbodies on each other, could calculate its progress with the utmost\nexactness, could tell with all nicety how much it would alter the forms\nof the orbits in a given time, could foresee the time when the\nwhole system must be irretrievably destroyed by its operation as a\nmathematical certainty. Nothing, that we call evil can be much more\ncertainly perceived than this derangement, of itself an evil, certainly\na great imperfection, if the system was observed by the mind of man\nas we regard human works. Yet we now find, from well considering some\nthings which had escaped attention, that the system is absolutely free\nfrom derangement; that all the disturbances counterbalance each other;\nand that the orbits never can either be flattened or bulged out beyond\na definite or very inconsiderable quantity. Can any one doubt that\nthere is also a reason for even the small and limited, this regular and\ntemporary derangement? Why it exists at all, or in any the least degree,\nwe as yet know not. But who will presume to doubt that it has a reason\nwhich would at once satisfy our minds were it known to us? Nay, who will\naffirm that the discovery of it may not yet be in reserve for some later\nand happier age? Then are we not entitled to apply the same reasoning to\nwhat at present appears Evil in a system of which, after all we know of\nit, so much still remains concealed from our view?\n\nThe mere act of creation in a Being of wisdom so admirable and power\nso vast, seems to make it extremely probable that perfect goodness\naccompanies the exertion of his perfect skill. There is something so\nrepugnant to all our feelings, but also to all the conceptions of our\nreason, in the supposition of such a Being desiring the misery, for its\nown sake, of the Beings whom he voluntarily called into existence and\nendowed with a sentient nature, that the mind naturally and irresistibly\nrecoils from such a thought. But this is not all. If the nature of that\ngreat Being were evil, his power being unbounded, there would be some\nproportion between the amounts of ills and the monuments of that power.\nYet we are struck dumb with the immensity of His works to which no\nimperfection can be ascribed, and in which no evil can be traced, while\nthe amount of mischief that we see might sink into a most insignificant\nspace; and is such as a being of inconsiderable power and very limited\nskill could easily have accomplished. This is not the same consideration\nwith the balance of good against evil; and inquirers do not seem to\nhave sufficiently attended to it. The argument, however, deserves much\nattention, for it is purely and strictly inductive. The divine nature\nis shown to be clothed with prodigious power and incomparable wisdom and\nskill,--power and skill so vast and so exceeding our comprehension that\nwe ordinarily term them infinite, and are only inclined to conceive the\npossibility of limiting, by the course of the argument upon evil, one\nalternative of which is assumed to raise an exception. But admitting on\naccount of the question under discussion, that we have only a right to\nsay that power and skill are prodigiously great, though possibly not\nboundless, they are plainly shown in the phenomena of the universe to\nbe the attributes of a Being, who, if evil-disposed, could have made the\nmonuments of Ill upon a scale resembling those of Power and Skill; so\nthat if those things which seem to us evil be really the result of a\nmischievous design in such a Being, we cannot comprehend why they are\nupon so entirely different a scale. This is a strong presumption from\nthe facts that we are wrong in imputing those appearances to such a\ndisposition. If so, what seems evil must needs be capable of some other\nexplanation consistent with divine goodness--that is to say, would not\nprove to be evil at all if we knew the whole of those facts.\n\nBut it is necessary to proceed a step further, especially with a view\nto the fundamental position now contended for, the extending to the\nquestion of Benevolence the same principles which we apply to that of\nIntelligence. The evil which exists, or that which we suppose to be\nevil, not only is of a kind and a magnitude requiring inconceivably less\npower and less skill than the admitted good of the creation--it also\nbears a very small proportion in amount; quite as small a proportion\nas the cases of unknown or undiscoverable design bear to those\nof acknowledged and proved contrivance. Generally speaking, the\npreservation and the happiness of sensitive creatures appears to be\nthe great object of creative exertion and conservative providence. The\nexpanding of our faculties, both bodily and mentally, is accompanied\nwith pleasure; the exercise of those powers is almost always attended\nwith gratification; all labor so acts as to make rest peculiarly\ndelicious; much of labor is enjoyment; the gratification of those\nappetites by which both the individual is preserved and the race is\ncontinued, is highly pleasurable to all animals; and it must be observed\nthat instead of being attracted by grateful sensations to do anything\nrequisite for our good or even our existence, we might have been just as\ncertainly urged by the feeling of pain, or the dread of it, which is a\nkind of suffering in itself. Nature, then, resembles the law-giver\nwho, to make his subjects obey, should prefer holding out rewards\nfor compliance with his commands rather than denounce punishments for\ndisobedience. But nature is yet more kind; she is gratuitously kind; she\nnot only prefers inducement to threat or compulsion, but she adds more\ngratification than was necessary to make us obey her calls. How well\nmight all creation have existed and been continued, though the air had\nnot been balmy in spring, or the shade and the spring refreshing in\nsummer; had the earth not been enamelled with flowers; and the air\nscented with perfumes! How needless for the propagation of plants was\nit that the seed should be enveloped in fruits the most savory to our\npalate, and if those fruits serve some other purpose, how foreign to\nthat purpose was the formation of our nerves so framed as to be soothed\nor excited by their flavor! We here perceive design, because we trace\nadaptation. But we at the same time perceive benevolent design, because\nwe perceive gratuitous and supererogatory enjoyment bestowed. Thus,\ntoo, see the care with which animals of all kinds are tended from their\nbirth. The mother\u2019s instinct is not more certainly the means of securing\nand providing for her young, than her gratification in the act of\nmaternal care is great and is also needless for making her perform that\nduty. The grove is not made vocal during pairing and incubation, in\norder to secure the laying or the hatching of eggs; for if it were as\nstill as the grave, or were filled with the most discordant croaking,\nthe process would be as well performed. So, too, mark the care with\nwhich injuries are remedied by what has been correctly called the _vis\nmedicatrix_. Is a muscle injured?--Suppuration takes place, the process\nof granulation succeeds, and new flesh is formed to supply the gap, or\nif that is less wide, a more simple healing process knits together\nthe severed parts. Is a bone injured?--A process commences by which\nan extraordinary secretion of bony matter takes place, and the void\nis supplied. Nay, the irreparable injury of a joint gives rise to\nthe formation of a new hinge, by which the same functions may be not\ninconveniently, though less perfectly, performed. Thus, too, recovery of\nvigor after sickness is provided for by increased appetite; but there\nis here superadded, generally, a feeling of comfort and lightness, an\nenjoyment of existence so delightful, that it is a common remark how\nnearly this compensates the sufferings of the illness. In the economy\nof the mind it is the same thing. All our exertions are stimulated by\ncuriosity, and the gratification is extreme of satisfying it. But it\nmight have been otherwise ordered, and some painful feeling might have\nbeen made the only stimulant to the acquisition of knowledge. So, the\ncharm of novelty is proverbial; but it might have been the unceasing\ncause of the most painful alarms. Habit renders every thing easy; but\nthe repetition might have only increased the annoyance. The loss of one\norgan makes the others more acute. But the partial injury might have\ncaused, as it were, a general paralysis. \u2018Tis thus that Paley is well\njustified in exclaiming, \u201cIt is a happy world after all!\u201d The pains and\nthe sufferings, bodily and mental, to which we are exposed, if they\ndo not sink into nothing, at least retreat within comparatively narrow\nbounds; the ills are hardly seen when we survey the great and splendid\npicture of worldly enjoyment or ease.\n\nBut the existence of considerable misery is undeniable: and the question\nis, of course, confined to that. Its exaggeration, in the ordinary\nestimate both of the vulgar and of skeptical reasoners, is equally\ncertain. Paley, Bishop Sumner, as well as Derham, King, Ray and others\nof the older writers, have made many judicious and generally correct\nobservations upon its amount, and they, as well as some of the able\nand learned authors of the _Bridgwater Treatises_, have done much in\nestablishing deductions necessary to be made, in order that we may\narrive at the true amount. That many things, apparently unmixed evils,\nwhen examined more narrowly, prove to be partially beneficial, is the\nfair result of their well-meant labors; and this, although anything\nrather than a proof that there is no evil at all, yet is valuable as\nstill further proving the analogy between this branch of the argument\nand that upon design; and in giving hopes that all may possibly be\nfound hereafter to be good, as everything will assuredly be found to be\ncontrived with an intelligent and useful purpose. It may be right to add\na remark or two upon some evils, and those of the greatest magnitude\nin the common estimate of human happiness, with a view of further\nillustrating this part of the subject.\n\nMere imperfection must altogether be deducted from the account. It\nnever can be contended that any evil nature can be ascribed to the first\ncause, merely for not having endowed sentient creatures with greater\npower or wisdom, for not having increased and multiplied the sources\nof enjoyment, or for not having made those pleasures which we have more\nexquisitely grateful. No one can be so foolish as to argue that the\nDeity is either limited in power, or deficient in goodness, because he\nhas chosen to create some beings of a less perfect order than others.\nThe mere negation in the creating of some, indeed of many, nay, of\nany conceivable number of desirable attributes, is therefore no proper\nevidence of evil design or of limited power in the Creator--it is no\nproof of the existence of evil properly so called. But does not this\nalso erase death from the catalogue of ills? It might well please the\nDeity to create a mortal being which, consisting of soul and body, was\nonly to live upon this earth for a limited number of years. If, when\nthat time has expired, this being is removed to another and a superior\nstate of existence, no evil whatever accrues to it from the change;\nand all views of the government of this world lead to the important and\nconsolitary conclusion, that such is the design of the Creator; that he\ncannot have bestowed on us minds capable of such expansion and culture\nonly to be extinguished when they have reached their highest pitch\nof improvement; or if this be considered as begging the question by\nassuming benevolent design, we cannot easily conceive that while the\nmind\u2019s force is so little affected by the body\u2019s decay, the destruction\nor dissolution of the latter should be the extinction of the former. But\nthat death operates as an evil of the very highest kind in two ways is\nobvious; the dread of it often embitters life, and the death of friends\nbrings to the mind by far its most painful infliction; certainly the\ngreatest suffering it can undergo without any criminal consciousness of\nits own.\n\nFor this evil, then--this grievous and admitted evil--how shall we\naccount? But first let us consider whether it be not unavoidable; not\nmerely under the present dispensation, and in the existing state of\nthings; for that is wholly irrelevant to the question which is raised\nupon the fitness of this very state of things; but whether it be not a\nnecessary evil. That man might have been created immortal is not denied;\nbut if it were the will of the Deity to form a limited being and to\nplace him upon the earth for only a certain period of time, his death\nwas the necessary consequence of this determination. Then as to the pain\nwhich one person\u2019s removal inflicts upon surviving parties, this seems\nthe equally necessary consequence of their having affections. For if\nany being feels love towards another, this implies his desire that the\nintercourse with that other should continue; or what is the same thing,\nthe repugnance and aversion to its ceasing; that is, he must suffer\naffliction for that removal of the beloved object. To create sentient\nbeings devoid of all feelings of affection was no doubt possible to\nOmnipotence; but to endow those beings with such feelings as would give\nthe constant gratification derived from the benevolent affections, and\nyet to make them wholly indifferent to the loss of the objects of those\naffections, was not possible even for Omnipotence; because it was a\ncontradiction in terms, equivalent to making a thing both exist and not\nexist at one and the same time. Would there have been any considerable\nhappiness in a life stripped of these kindly affections? We cannot\naffirm that there would not, because we are ignorant what other\nenjoyments might have been substituted for the indulgence of them. But\nneither can we affirm that any such substitution could have been found;\nand it lies upon those who deny the necessary connection between the\nhuman mind, or any sentient being\u2019s mind, and grief for the loss of\nfriends, to show that there are other enjoyments which could furnish an\nequivalent to the gratification derived from the benevolent feelings.\nThe question then reduces itself to this: Wherefore did a being, who\ncould have made sentient beings immortal, choose to make them mortal?\nor, Wherefore has he placed man upon the earth for a time only? or,\nWherefore has he set bounds to the powers and capacities which he has\nbeen pleased to bestow upon his creatures? And this is a question which\nwe certainly never shall be able to solve; but a question extremely\ndifferent from the one more usually put--How happens it that a good\nbeing has made a world full of misery and death?\n\nIn the necessary ignorance wherein we are of the whole designs of the\nDeity, we cannot wonder if some things, nay, if many things, are to our\nfaculties inscrutable. But we assuredly have no right to say that those\ndifficulties which try and vex us are incapable of a solution, any more\nthan we have to say, that those cases in which as yet we can see no\ntrace of design, are not equally the result of intelligence, and equally\nconducive to a fixed and useful purpose with those in which we have been\nable to perceive the whole, or nearly the whole scheme. Great as have\nbeen our achievements in physical astronomy, we are as yet wholly unable\nto understand why a power pervades the system acting inversely as the\nsquares of the distance from the point to which it attracts, rather\nthan a power acting according to any other law; and why it has been the\npleasure of the almighty Architect of that universe, that the orbits\nof the planets should be nearly circular instead of approaching to, or\nbeing exactly the same with many other trajectories of a nearly similar\nform, though of other properties; nay, instead of being curves of a\nwholly different class and shape. Yet we never doubt that there was a\nreason for this choice; nay, we fancy it possible that even on earth\nwe may hereafter understand it more clearly than we now do: and never\nquestion that in another state of being we may be permitted to enjoy the\ncontemplation of it. Why should we doubt that, at least in that higher\nstate, we may also be enabled to perceive such an arrangement as shall\nmake evil wholly disappear from our present system, by showing that it\nwas necessary and inevitable, even in the works of the Deity; or, which\nis the same thing, that its existence conduces to such a degree\nof perfection and happiness upon, the whole, as could not, even by\nOmnipotence, be attained without it; or, which is the same thing,\nthat the whole creation as it exists, taking both worlds together, is\nperfect, and incapable of being in any particular changed without being\nmade worse and less perfect? Taking both worlds together--For certainly\nwere our views limited to the present sublunary state, we may well\naffirm that no solution whatever could even be imagined of the\ndifficulty--if we are never again to live; if those we here loved are\nforever lost to us; if our faculties can receive no further expansion;\nif our mental powers are only trained and improved to be extinguished\nat their acme--then indeed are we reduced to the melancholy and gloomy\ndilemma of the Epicureans; and evil is confessed to checker, nay, almost\nto cloud over our whole lot, without the possibility of comprehending\nwhy, or of reconciling its existence with the supposition of a\nprovidence at once powerful and good. But this inference is also an\nadditional argument for a future state, when we couple it with these\nother conclusions respecting the economy of the world to which we are\nled by wholly different routes, when we investigate the phenomena around\nus and within us.\n\nSuppose, for example, it should be found that there are certain purposes\nwhich can in no way whatever--no conceivable way--be answered except\nby placing man in a state of trial or probation; suppose the essential\nnature of mind shall be found to be such that it could not in any\nway whatever exist so as to be capable of the greatest purity and\nimprovement--in other words, the highest perfection--without having\nundergone a probation; or suppose it should be found impossible to\ncommunicate certain enjoyments to rational and sentient beings\nwithout having previously subjected them to certain trials and certain\nsufferings--as, for instance, the pleasures derived from a consciousness\nof perfect security, the certainty that we can suffer and perish no\nmore--this surely is a possible supposition. Now, to continue the last\nexample--Whatever pleasure there is in the contrast between ease and\nprevious vexation or pain, whatever enjoyment we derive from the feeling\nof absolute security after the vexation and uncertainty of a precarious\nstate, implies a previous suffering--a previous state of precarious\nenjoyment; and not only implies it but necessarily implies it, so that\nthe power of Omnipotence itself could not convey to us the enjoyment\nwithout having given us the previous suffering. Then is it not possible\nthat the object of an all powerful and perfectly benevolent being should\nbe to create like beings, to whom as entire happiness, as complete and\nperfect enjoyment, should be given as any created beings--that is, any\nbeing, except the Creator himself--can by possibility enjoy? This is\ncertainly not only a very possible supposition, but it appears to be\nquite consistent with, if it be not a necessary consequence of, his\nbeing perfectly good as well as powerful and wise. Now we have shown,\ntherefore, that such being supposed the design of Providence, even\nOmnipotence itself could not accomplish this design, as far as one great\nand important class of enjoyments is concerned, without the previous\nexistence of some pain, some misery. Whatever gratification arises\nfrom relief--from contrast--from security succeeding anxiety--from\nrestoration of lost affections--from renewing severed connections--and\nmany others of a like kind, could not by any possibility be enjoyed\nunless the correlative suffering had first been undergone. Nor will the\nargument be at all impeached by observing, that one Being may be made\nto feel the pleasure of ease and security by seeing others subjected\nto suffering and distress; for that assumes the infliction of misery on\nthose others; it is \u201c_alterius_ spectare laborem\u201d that we are supposing\nto be sweet; and this is still partial evil.\n\nAs the whole argument respecting evil must, from the nature of the\nquestion, resolve itself into either a proof of some absolute or\nmathematical necessity not to be removed by infinite power, or the\nshowing that some such proof may be possible although we have not\nyet discovered it, an illustration may naturally be expected to be\nattainable from mathematical considerations. Thus, we have already\nadverted to the law of periodical irregularities in the solar system.\nAny one before it was discovered seemed entitled to expatiate upon the\noperation of the disturbing forces arising from mutual attraction,\nand to charge the system arranged upon the principle of universal\ngravitation with want of skill, nay, with leading to inevitable\nmischief--mischief or evil of so prodigious an extent as to exceed\nincalculably all the instances of evil and of suffering which we see\naround us in this single planet. Nevertheless, what then appeared so\nclearly to be a defect and an evil, is now well known to be the very\nabsolute perfection of the whole heavenly architecture.\n\nAgain, we may derive a similar illustration from a much more limited\ninstance, but one immediately connected with strict mathematical\nreasoning, and founded altogether in the nature of necessary truth. The\nproblem has been solved by mathematicians, Sir Isaac Newton having first\ninvestigated it, of finding the form of a symmetrical solid, or solid of\nrevolution, which in moving through a fluid shall experience the least\npossible resistance. The figure bears a striking resemblance to that of\na fish. Now suppose a fish were formed exactly in this shape, and\nthat some animal endowed with reason were placed upon a portion of its\nsurface, and able to trace its form for only a limited extent, say at\nthe narrow part, where the broad portion or end of the moving body were\nopposed, or seemed as if it were opposed, to the surrounding fluid when\nthe fish moved--the reasoner would at once conclude that the contrivance\nof the fish\u2019s form was very inconvenient, and that nothing could be much\nworse adapted for expeditious or easy movement through the waters.\n\nYet it is certain that upon being afterwards permitted to view THE WHOLE\nbody of the fish, what had seemed a defect and an evil, not only would\nappear plainly to be none at all, but it would appear manifest that\nthis seeming evil or defect was a part of the most perfect and excellent\nstructure which it was possible even for Omnipotence and Omniscience\nto have adopted, and that no other conceivable arrangement could by\npossibility have produced so much advantage, or tended so much to\nfulfill the design in view. Previous to being enlightened by such\nan enlarged view of the whole facts, it would thus be a rash and\nunphilosophical thing in the reasoner whose existence we are supposing\nto pronounce an unfavorable opinion. Still more unwise would it be if\nnumerous other observations had evinced traces of skill and goodness\nin the fish\u2019s structure. The true and the safe conclusion would be to\nsuspend an opinion which could only be unsatisfactorily formed upon\nimperfect data; and to rest in the humble hope and belief that one day\nall would appear for the best.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The \u201clight of revelation,\u201d as well as the \u201clight of the\nChristian religion,\u201d has not dispelled the darkness of ignorance. The\ntorch of reason is a surer guide.--_Pub._]\n\n[Footnote 2: The human race has from time immemorial been afflicted with\nso-called revelations, all claiming inspiration, all conflicting, and\nall being equally \u201cmysterious and obscure.\u201d The wars arising among these\nsectarians have retarded civilization, and deluged the earth in blood.\nThe revelations of science, founded upon reason and demonstration, have\nproved the only safe and beneficent guide.--_Pub._]\n\n[Footnote 3: While it is true that the argument of Design, here given,\nplaces the subject one step in advance, it is still unsatisfactory,\nbecause it fails to explain to us who designed the designer, and the\nmystery of creation still remains unsolved.\n\n\u201cWhat think you of an uncaused cause of everything?\u201d is the pertinent\nquestion which Bishop Watson, in his _Apology for the Bible_, asked, and\nvainly asked, of the celebrated deist, Thomas Paine.--_Pub._]","title":"The Fallen Star, or, the History of a False Religion by E.L. Bulwer; And, A Dissertation on the Origin of Evil by Lord Brougham","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29753}