con, as if they were necessary for the salvation of mankind, and who, nevertheless, holds out prospects of terrible consequences to follow a violation of truth?Would he not be a cruel God, if He had the truth and yet could quickly look down upon mankind,miserably worrying itself for the sake of truth?But perhaps He yet is a God of goodness—and Hewas only unable to express Himself more distinctly, Perhaps He was wanting in intelligence? Or in eloquence? So much the worse! For, in that case, He may perhaps have mistaken that which He calls His truth, and Himself is not quite a stranger to the “poor, duped devil." Must he not suffer intense agonics on secing His creatures, for the sake of the knowledge of Himself, suffer so much and even more pain through all eternity, without being able to advise and help them, except as a deaf-and-dumb, who makes all sorts of ambiguous signs when the most terrible danger hangs over his child or his dog? A believer whothus argues and thus feels oppressed, ought really to be forgiven for being more inclined to pity with the suffering God than with his “neighbour's"; for they are no longer his neighbours if that most isolated, most primeval being be also the greatest sufferer and more than any in need of comfort. All religions bear traces of the fact that they owe their origin to an early immature intellectuality of men—they all make very light of the obligation to speak the truth: they know
7
