must be thwarted by something
independent of himself, whether this be an evil spirit or matter. Now
scholars have pointed out that the idea of a prolonged conflict between
a {160} good and an evil power was characteristic of the Persian
religion, and that this view tinged later Judaism and passed over into
Christianity. Here it was met and reenforced by Neo-Platonism in the
form usually called Gnosticism and Manicheism. At present, the tide
has turned in favor of monotheism and against the coexistence of an
evil power. We are inclined to smile at a personal devil, perhaps
because superstition has made him humorous, perhaps because we know
better the seat and cause of what we call evil. Science has helped to
do away with the devil; but, in so doing, has it not also undermined
the idea of Providence? Must not the same arrow transfix an effective
God that does away with an effective Devil?

The God of the past was a realistic God; he counted for everything in
the governance of the universe. The God of modern theology is fast
becoming an ideal of personality. When God is thought of as a
tender-hearted and perfect gentleman, the question of evil takes the
following form: Can we harmonize this conception with the facts of
life? _Is God an agent or an ideal_? We must bear in mind the fact
that God is an hypothesis characteristic of the religious view of the
world, and that, like every other hypothesis, it should help to explain
the facts to which it is relevant. But does it do this? Is it
fruitful?

I am free to confess that theodicies of all sorts strike me as proofs
of the inapplicability of the religious view of the world. Yet immense
dialectical ability has been displayed in the tireless search for some
satisfactory theory of God's relation to the universe. A glance at
these theories reveals the working of the time-spirit. When man is
harsh, his god is harsh and cruel. When {161} man is tender, his god
is benevolent. And this correspondence does not complete the story.
In past ages, the political organization was autocratic and unyielding.
The subjects of the monarch did not dream of questioning the justice of
his rule. It was not right for common men to think of such matters; it
was out of their sphere of control and understanding. Besides, is not
might the sanction of right? During these monarchial periods, God was
thought of as a heavenly king whose power and glory and dominion was
without end. T