apparent, the result of our ignorance and our weakness; and her mission is, to show this by helping on the triumph of moral order over disorder. We may, if we like, — as many indeed do, — reject the faith in the Infinite Goodness, and thereby paralyse our religious activity; but then, to be consistent, we must also reject the faith in the Infinite Reason, and thereby paralyse our scientific activity.
So much for a rational justification of the indestructible faith Religion has in the Infinite Righteousness, even in the presence of abounding evil. It is founded on the same ground as our indestructible faith in the Reign of Law in the natural world, and is just as reasonable. Why is it, then, it may be asked, that every one is willing to admit the postulate of science, while so many doubt that of religion? I answer: Partly because of the feebleness of our moral life in comparison with our physical life; but mainly because the steady advance of science, with its progressive conquest of chaos, and its extension of the domain of order and law, is a continual verification of the postulate of science, and justification of our faith therein; while, on the contrary, the progress of morality and religion is uncertain and often unrecognised, the increase of righteousness and decrease of evil doubtful and even denied. In the presence of such uncertainty, our faith is often sorely tried. We cry out for some explanation — for some philosophy which shall show us how evil is consistent with the Infinite Goodness. We know it is, for that is a necessary postulate. But — how?
In regard to moral evil, or sin, — which, I need not
