Page:The Conception of God (1897).djvu/107

myself; and yet these, too, may be less than they seem. In a general way, certainly, I agree with his explanation of the dark enigma of Evil. Evil cannot be the true meaning and real outcome of the universe; on the contrary, it is the means, the necessary means, of the highest good; and thus it is, in a legitimate sense, nothing but good in disguise. This is a necessary postulate of our moral nature. Professor Royce has admirably shown this, in his chapter entitled “The World of the Postulates.” Our moral and religious nature is just as fundamental and essential as our scientific and rational nature. As science is not simply passionless acquisition of knowledge, but also enthusiasm for truth, so morality is not passionless rules of best conduct, but impassioned love of righteousness. And this last is what we call Religion; for religion is morality touched and vivified with noble emotion. Now, the necessary postulate of science, without which scientific activity would be impossible, is a Rational Order of the universe; and, similarly, the necessary postulate of religion, without which religious activity would be impossible, is a Moral Order of the universe. As science postulates the final triumph of reason, so religion must postulate the final triumph of righteousness. Science believes in the Rational Order, or in law, in spite of apparent confusion; she knows that disorder is only apparent, only the result of ignorance; and her mission is, to show this by reducing all appearances, all phenomena, to law. So also Religion is right in her unshakable belief in the Moral Order, in spite of apparent disorder or evil; she knows that evil is only