按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
who does not fulfil ＇sic＇ the conditions which our ideas attach
to the word 〃person；〃 is ipso facto atheistic； as
rendering the word God without meaning； and therefore without
reality； and therefore non…existent to us。 Our ideas are like
our organism； they will stand a vast amount of modification if it
is effected slowly and without shock； but the life departs out of
them； leaving the form of an idea without the power thereof； if
they are jarred too rudely。
Any being； then； whom we can imagine as God； must have all the
qualities； capabilities； and also all the limitations which are
implied when the word 〃person〃 is used。
But； again； we cannot conceive of 〃everything〃 as a person。
〃Everything〃 must comprehend all that is to be found on earth； or
outside of it； and we know of no such persons as this。 When we
say 〃persons〃 we intend living people with flesh and blood；
sometimes we extend our conceptions to animals and plants； but we
have not hitherto done so as generally as I hope we shall some
day come to do。 Below animals and plants we have never in any
seriousness gone。 All that we have been able to regard as
personal has had what we can call a living body； even though that
body is vegetable only； and this body has been tangible； and has
been comprised within certain definite limits； or within limits
which have at any rate struck the eye as definite。 And every part
within these limits has been animated by an unseen something
which we call soul or spirit。 A person must be a persona…
that is to say； the living mask and mouthpiece of an energy
saturating it； and speaking through it。 It must be animate in all
its parts。
But 〃everything〃 is not animate。 Animals and plants alone produce
in us those ideas which can make reasonable people call them
〃persons〃 with consistency of intention。 We can conceive of each
animal and of each plant as a person； we can conceive again of a
compound person like the coral polypes ＇sic＇； or like a tree
which is composed of a congeries of subordinate persons；
inasmuch as each bud is a separate and individual plant。 We can
go farther than this； and； as I shall hope to show； we ought to
do so； that is to say； we shall find it easier and more agreeable
with our other ideas to go farther than not； for we should see
all animal and vegetable life as united by a subtle and till
lately invisible ramification； so that all living things are one
tree…like growth； forming a single person。 But we cannot conceive
of oceans； continents； and air as forming parts of a person at
all； much less can we think of them as forming one person with
the living forms that inhabit them。
To ask this of us is like asking us to see the bowl and the water
in which three gold…fish are swimming as part of the gold…fish。
We cannot do it any more than we can do something physically
impossible。 We can see the gold…fish as forming one family； and
therefore as in a way united to the personality of the parents
from which they sprang； and therefore as members one of another；
and therefore as forming a single growth of gold…fish； as boughs
and buds unite to form a tree； but we cannot by any effort of the
imagination introduce the bowl and the water into the
personality； for we have never been accustomed to think of such
things as living and personal。 Those； therefore； who tell us that
〃God is everything； and everything is God；〃 require us to see
〃everything〃 as a person； which we cannot； or God as not a
person； which again we cannot。
Continuing the article of Mr。 Blunt from which I have already
quoted； I read ：…
〃Linus； in a passage which has been preserved by Stobaeus；
exactly expresses the notion afterwards adopted by Spinoza： 'One
sole energy governs all things； all things are unity； and each
portion is All； for of one integer all things were born； in the
end of time all things shall again become unity； the unity of
multiplicity。' Orpheus； his disciple； taught no other doctrine。〃
According to Pythagoras； 〃an adept in the Orphic philosophy；〃
〃the soul of the world is the Divine energy which interpenetrates
every portion of the mass； and the soul of man is an efflux of
that energy。 The world； too； is an exact impress of the Eternal
Idea； which is the mind of God。〃 John Scotus Erigena taught that
〃all is God and God is all。〃 William of Champeaux； again； two
hundred years later； maintained that 〃all individuality is one in
substance； and varies only in its non…essential accidents and
transient properties。〃 Amalric of Bena and David of Dinant
followed the theory out 〃into a thoroughgoing Pantheism。〃
Amalric held that 〃All is God and God is all。 The Creator and the
creature are one Being。 Ideas are at once creative and created；
subjective and objective。 God is the end of all； and all return
to Him。 As every variety of humanity forms one manhood； so the
world contains individual forms of one eternal essence。〃 David
of Dinant only varied upon this by 〃imagining a corporeal unity。
Although body； soul； and eternal substance are three； these three
are one and the same being。〃
Giordano Bruno maintained the world of sense to be 〃a vast animal
having the Deity for its living。 soul。〃 The inanimate part of the
world is thus excluded from participation in the Deity； and a
conception that our minds can embrace is offered us instead of
one which they cannot entertain； except as in a dream；
incoherently。 But without such a view of evolution as was
prevalent at the beginning of this century； it was impossible to
see 〃the world of sense〃 intelligently； as forming 〃a vast
animal。〃 Unless； therefore； Giordano Bruno held the opinions of
Buffon； Dr。 Erasmus Darwin； and Lamarck； with more definiteness
than I am yet aware of his having done； his contention must be
considered as a splendid prophecy； but as little more than a
prophecy。 He continues； 〃Birth is expansion from the one centre
of Life； life is its continuance； and death is the necessary
return of the ray to the centre of light。〃 This begins finely；
but ends mystically。 I have not； however； compared the English
translation with the original； and must reserve a fuller
examination of Giordano Bruno's teaching for another opportunity。
Spinoza disbelieved in the world rather than in God。 He was an
Acosmist； to use Jacobi's expression； rather than an Atheist。
According to him； 〃the Deity and the Universe are but one
substance； at the same time both spirit and matter； thought and
extension； which are the only known attributes of the Deity。〃
My readers will； I think； agree with me that there is very little
of the above which conveys ideas with the fluency and comfort
which accompany good words。 Words are like servants： it is not
enough that we should have them…we must have the most able and
willing that we can find； and at the smallest wages that will
content them。 Having got them we must make the best and not the
worst of them。 Surely； in the greater part of what has been
quoted above； the words are barren letters only： they do not
quicken within us and enable us to conceive a thought； such as we
can in our turn impress upon dead matter； and mould ＇sic＇ that
matter into another shape than its own； through the thought which
has become alive within us。 No offspring of ideas has followed
upon them； or； if any at all； yet in such unwonted shape； and
with such want of alacrity； that we loathe them as malformations
and miscarriages of our minds。 Granted that if we examine them
closely we shall at length find them to embody a little germ of
truth…that is to say； of coherency with our other ideas； but
there is too little truth in proportion to the trouble necessary
to get at it。 We can get more truth； that is to say； more
coherency…for truth and coherency are one…for less trouble in
other ways。
But it may be urged that the beginnings of all tasks are
difficult and unremunerative； and that later developments of
Pantheism may be more intelligible than the earlier ones。
Unfortunately； this is not the case。 On continuing Mr。 Blunt's
article； I find the later Pantheists a hundredfold more
perplexing than the earlier ones。 With Kant； Schelling； Fichte；
and Hegel； we feel that we are with men who have been decoyed
into a hopeless quagmire； we understand nothing of their
language…we doubt whether they understand themselves； and feel
that we can do nothing with them but look at them and pass them
by。
In my next chapter I propose to show the end which the early
Pantheists were striving after； and the reason and naturalness of
their error。
CHAPTER IV
PANTHEISM。 II
The earlier Pantheists were misled by the endeavour ＇sic＇ to lay
hol