And lo! as the archangel spake, the stars beheld a
young and all lustrous stranger on the throne of the
erring star; and his face was so soft to look upon,
that the dimmest of human eyes might have gazed upon
its splendor unabashed; but the dark fiend alone was
dazzled by its lustre, and, with a yell that shook
the flaming pillars of the universe, he plunged backwards
into the gloom.
Then, far and sweet from the arch unseen, came forth
the voice of God:
“Behold! on the throne of the discontented
star sits the star of hope; and he that breathed into
mankind the Religion of Fear hath a successor in him
who shall teach earth the Religion of Love.”
And evermore the Star of Fear dwells with Lucifer,
and the Star of Love keeps vigil in heaven.
BY LORD BROUGHAM.
The question which has more than, any other harassed
metaphysical reasoners, but especially theologians,
and upon which it is probable that no very satisfactory
conclusion will ever be reached by the human faculties,
is the Origin and Sufferance of Evil.
Its existence being always assumed, philosophers have
formed various theories for explaining it, but they
have always drawn very different inferences from it.
The ancient Epicureans argued against the existence
of the Deity, because they held that the existence
of Evil either proved him to be limited in power or
of a malignant nature; either of which imperfections
is inconsistent with the first notions of a divine
being.
In this kind of reasoning they have been followed
both by the atheists and sceptics of later times.
Bayle regarded the subject of evil as one of the great
arsenals from whence his weapons were to be chiefly
drawn. None of the articles in his famous Dictionary
are more labored than those in which he treats of
this subject. Monichian, and still more Paulician,
almost assume the appearance of formal treatises upon
the question; and both Marchionite and Zoroaster
treat of the same subject. All these articles
are of considerable value; they contain the greater
part of the learning upon the question; and they are
distinguished by the acuteness of reasoning which
was the other characteristic of their celebrated author.
Those ancient philosophers who did not agree with
Epicurus in arguing from the existence of evil against
the existence of a providence that superintended and
influenced the destinies of the world, were put to
no little difficulty in accounting for the fact which
they did not deny, and yet maintaining the power of
a divine ruler. The doctrine of a double principle,
or of two divine beings of opposite natures, one beneficent,
the other mischievous, was the solution which one
class of reasoners deemed satisfactory, and to which
they held themselves driven by the phenomena of the
universe.
