The cult of the Virgin, Mariolatry, which, by the gradual elevation of the divine element in the Virgin has led almost to her deification, answers merely to the demand of the feeling that G.o.d should be a perfect man, that G.o.d should include in His nature the feminine element. The progressive exaltation of the Virgin Mary, the work of Catholic piety, having its beginning in the expression Mother of G.o.d, _theotokos_, _deipara_, has culminated in attributing to her the status of co-redeemer and in the dogmatic declaration of her conception without the stain of original sin. Hence she now occupies a position between Humanity and Divinity and nearer Divinity than Humanity. And it has been surmised that in course of time she may perhaps even come to be regarded as yet another personal manifestation of the G.o.dhead.

And yet this might not necessarily involve the conversion of the Trinity into a Quaternity. If _pneuma_, in Greek, spirit, instead of being neuter had been feminine, who can say that the Virgin Mary might not already have become an incarnation or humanization of the Holy Spirit? That fervent piety which always knows how to mould theological speculation in accordance with its own desires would have found sufficient warranty for such a doctrine in the text of the Gospel, in Luke's narrative of the Annunciation where the angel Gabriel hails Mary with the words, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee," _pneuma agion epeleusetai epi se_ (Luke i. 35). And thus a dogmatic evolution would have been effected parallel to that of the divinization of Jesus, the Son, and his identification with the Word.

In any case the cult of the Virgin, of the eternal feminine, or rather of the divine feminine, of the divine maternity, helps to complete the personalization of G.o.d by const.i.tuting Him a family.

In one of my books (_Vida de Don Quijote y Sancho_, part ii., chap.

lxvii.) I have said that "G.o.d was and is, in our mind, masculine. In His mode of judging and condemning men, He acts as a male, not as a human person above the limitation of s.e.x; He acts as a father. And to counterbalance this, the Mother element was required, the Mother who always forgives, the Mother whose arms are always open to the child when he flies from the frowning brow or uplifted hand of the angry father; the Mother in whose bosom we seek the dim, comforting memory of that warmth and peace of our pre-natal unconsciousness, of that milky sweetness that soothed our dreams of innocence; the Mother who knows no justice but that of forgiveness, no law but that of love. Our weak and imperfect conception of G.o.d as a G.o.d with a long beard and a voice of thunder, of a G.o.d who promulgates laws and p.r.o.nounces dooms, of a G.o.d who is the Master of a household, a Roman Paterfamilias, required counterpoise and complement, and since fundamentally we are unable to conceive of the personal and living G.o.d as exalted above human and even masculine characteristics, and still less as a neutral or hermaphrodite G.o.d, we have recourse to providing Him with a feminine G.o.d, and by the side of the G.o.d-Father we have placed the G.o.ddess-Mother, she who always forgives, because, since she sees with love-blind eyes, she sees always the hidden cause of the fault and in that hidden cause the only justice of forgiveness ..."

And to this I must now add that not only are we unable to conceive of the full and living G.o.d as masculine simply, but we are unable to conceive of Him as individual simply, as the projection of a solitary I, an unsocial I, an I that is in reality an abstract I. My living I is an I that is really a We; my living personal I lives only in other, of other, and by other I's; I am sprung, from a mult.i.tude of ancestors, I carry them within me in extract, and at the same time I carry within me, potentially, a mult.i.tude of descendants, and G.o.d, the projection of my I to the infinite--or rather I, the projection of G.o.d to the finite--must also be mult.i.tude. Hence, in order to save the personality of G.o.d--that is to say, in order to save the living G.o.d--faith's need--the need of the feeling and the imagination--of conceiving Him and; feeling Him as possessed of a certain internal multiplicity.

This need the pagan feeling of a living divinity obviated by polytheism.

It is the agglomeration of its G.o.ds, the republic of them, that really const.i.tutes its Divinity. The real G.o.d of h.e.l.lenic paganism is not so much Father Zeus (_Jupiter_) as the whole society of G.o.ds and demi-G.o.ds.

Hence the solemnity of the invocation of Demosthenes when he invoked all the G.o.ds and all the G.o.ddesses: _tois theohis euchomai pasi kahi pasais_.

And when the rationalizers converted the term G.o.d, _theos_, which is properly an adjective, a quality predicated of each one of the G.o.ds, into a substantive, and added the definite article to it, they produced _the_ G.o.d, _o theos_, the dead and abstract G.o.d of philosophical rationalism, a substantivized quality and therefore void of personality.

For the masculine concrete G.o.d (_el_ dios) is nothing but the neuter abstract divine quality (_lo_ divino). Now the transition from feeling the divinity in all things to substantivating it and converting the Divinity into G.o.d, cannot be achieved without feeling undergoing a certain risk. And the Aristotelian G.o.d, the G.o.d of the logical proofs, is nothing more than the Divinity, a concept and not a living person who can be felt and with whom through love man can communicate. This G.o.d is merely a substantivized adjective; He is a const.i.tutional G.o.d who reigns but does not govern, and Knowledge is His const.i.tutional charter.

And even in Greco-Latin paganism itself the tendency towards a living monotheism is apparent in the fact that Zeus was conceived of and felt as a father, _Zeus pater_, as Homer calls him, the _Ju-piter_ or _Ju-pater_ of the Latins, and as a father of a whole widely extended family of G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses who together with him const.i.tuted the Divinity.

The conjunction of pagan polytheism with Judaic monotheism, which had endeavoured by other means to save the personality of G.o.d, gave birth to the feeling of the Catholic G.o.d, a G.o.d who is a society, as the pagan G.o.d of whom I have spoken was a society, and who at the same time is one, as the G.o.d of Israel finally became one. Such is the Christian Trinity, whose deepest sense rationalistic deism has scarcely ever succeeded in understanding, that deism, which though more or less impregnated with Christianity, always remains Unitarian or Socinian.

And the truth is that we feel G.o.d less as a superhuman consciousness than as the actual consciousness of the whole human race, past, present, and future, as the collective consciousness of the whole race, and still more, as the total and infinite consciousness which embraces and sustains all consciousnesses, infra-human, human, and perhaps, super-human. The divinity that there is in everything, from the lowest--that is to say, from the least conscious--of living forms, to the highest, including our own human consciousness, this divinity we feel to be personalized, conscious of itself, in G.o.d. And this gradation of consciousnesses, this sense of the gulf between the human and the fully divine, the universal, consciousness, finds its counterpart in the belief in angels with their different hierarchies, as intermediaries between our human consciousness and that of G.o.d. And these gradations a faith consistent with itself must believe to be infinite, for only by an infinite number of degrees is it possible to pa.s.s from the finite to the infinite.

Deistic rationalism conceives G.o.d as the Reason of the Universe, but its logic compels it to conceive Him as an impersonal reason--that is to say, as an idea--while deistic vitalism feels and imagines G.o.d as Consciousness, and therefore as a person or rather as a society of persons. The consciousness of each one of us, in effect, is a society of persons; in me there are various I's and even the I's of those among whom I live, live in me.

The G.o.d of deistic rationalism, in effect, the G.o.d of the logical proofs of His existence, the _ens realissimum_ and the immobile prime mover, is nothing more than a Supreme Reason, but in the same sense in which we can call the law of universal gravitation the reason of the falling of bodies, this law being merely the explanation of the phenomenon. But will anyone say that that which we call the law of universal gravitation, or any other law or mathematical principle, is a true and independent reality, that it is an angel, that it is something which possesses consciousness of itself and others, that it is a person? No, it is nothing but an idea without any reality outside of the mind of him who conceives it. And similarly this G.o.d-Reason either possesses consciousness of himself or he possesses no reality outside the mind that conceives him. And if he possesses consciousness of himself, he becomes a personal reason, and then all the value of the traditional proofs disappears, for these proofs only proved a reason, but not a supreme consciousness. Mathematics prove an order, a constancy, a reason in the series of mechanical phenomena, but they 'do not prove that this reason is conscious of itself. This reason is a logical necessity, but the logical necessity does not prove the teleological or finalist necessity. And where there is no finality there is no personality, there is no consciousness.

The rational G.o.d, therefore--that is to say, the G.o.d who is simply the Reason of the Universe and nothing more--consummates his own destruction, is destroyed in our mind in so far as he is such a G.o.d, and is only born again in us when we feel him in our heart as a living person, as Consciousness, and no longer merely as the impersonal and objective Reason of the Universe. If we wish for a rational explanation of the construction of a machine, all that we require to know is the mechanical science of its constructor; but if we would have a reason for the existence of such a machine, then, since it is the work not of Nature but of man, we must suppose a conscious, constructive being. But the second part of this reasoning is not applicable to G.o.d, even though it be said that in Him the mechanical science and the mechanician, by means of which the machine was constructed, are one and the same thing.

From the rational point of view this identification is merely a begging of the question. And thus it is that reason destroys this Supreme Reason, in so far as the latter is a person.

The human reason, in effect, is a reason that is based upon the irrational, upon the total vital consciousness, upon will and feeling; our human reason is not a reason that can prove to us the existence of a Supreme Reason, which in its turn would have to be based upon the Supreme Irrational, upon the Universal Consciousness. And the revelation of this Supreme Consciousness in our feeling and imagination, by love, by faith, by the process of personalization, is that which leads us to believe in the living G.o.d.

And this G.o.d, the living G.o.d, your G.o.d, our G.o.d, is in me, is in you, lives in us, and we live and move and have our being in Him. And He is in us by virtue of the hunger, the longing, which we have for Him, He is Himself creating the longing for Himself. And He is the G.o.d of the humble, for in the words of the Apostle, G.o.d chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (i Cor. i. 27). And G.o.d is in each one of us in the measure in which each one feels Him and loves Him. "If of two men," says Kierkegaard, "one prays to the true G.o.d without sincerity of heart, and the other prays to an idol with all the pa.s.sion of an infinite yearning, it is the first who really prays to an idol, while the second really prays to G.o.d." It would be better to say that the true G.o.d is He to whom man truly prays and whom man truly desires.

And there may even be a truer revelation in superst.i.tion itself than in theology. The venerable Father of the long beard and white locks who appears among the clouds carrying the globe of the world in his hand is more living and more real than the _ens realissimum_ of theodicy.

Reason is an a.n.a.lytical, that is, a dissolving force, whenever it transfers its activity from the form of intuitions, whether those of the individual instinct of preservation or those of the social instinct of perpetuation, and applies it to the essence and matter of them. Reason orders the sensible perceptions which give us the material world; but when its a.n.a.lysis is exercised upon the reality of the perceptions themselves, it dissolves them and plunges us into a world of appearances, a world of shadows without consistency, for outside the domain of the formal, reason is nihilist and annihilating. And it performs the same terrible office when we withdraw it from its proper domain and apply it to the scrutiny of the imaginative intuitions which give us the spiritual world. For reason annihilates and imagination completes, integrates or totalizes; reason by itself alone kills, and it is imagination that gives life. If it is true that imagination by itself alone, in giving us life without limit, leads us to lose our ident.i.ty in the All and also kills us as individuals, it kills us by excess of life.

Reason, the head, speaks to us the word Nothing! imagination, the heart, the word All! and between all and nothing, by the fusion of the all and the nothing within us, we live in G.o.d, who is All, and G.o.d lives in us who, without Him, are nothing. Reason reiterates, Vanity of vanities!

all is vanity! And imagination answers, Plenitude of plenitudes! all is plenitude! And thus we live the vanity of plenitude or the plenitude of vanity.

And so deeply rooted in the depths of man's being is this vital need of living a world[42] illogical, irrational, personal or divine, that those who do not believe in G.o.d, or believe that they do not believe in Him, believe nevertheless in some little pocket G.o.d or even devil of their own, or in an omen, or in a horseshoe picked up by chance on the roadside and carried about with them to bring them good luck and defend them from that very reason whose loyal and devoted henchmen they imagine themselves to be.

The G.o.d whom we hunger after is the G.o.d to whom we pray, the G.o.d of the _Pater Noster_, of the Lord's Prayer; the G.o.d whom we beseech, before all and above all, and whether we are aware of it or not, to instil faith into us, to make us believe in Him, to make Himself in us, the G.o.d to whom we pray that His name may be hallowed and that His will may be done--His will, not His reason--on earth as it is in heaven; but feeling that His will cannot be other than the essence of our will, the desire to persist eternally.

And such a G.o.d is the G.o.d of love--_how_ He is it profits us not to ask, but rather let each consult his own heart and give his imagination leave to picture Him in the remoteness of the Universe, gazing down upon him with those myriad eyes of His that shine in the night-darkened heavens.

He in whom you believe, reader, He is your G.o.d, He who has lived with you and within you, who was born with you, who was a child when you were a child, who became a man according as you became a man, who will vanish when you yourself vanish, and who is your principle of continuity in the spiritual life, for He is the principle of solidarity among all men and in each man and between men and the Universe, and He is, as you are, a person. And if you believe in G.o.d, G.o.d believes in you, and believing in you He creates you continually. For in your essence you are nothing but the idea that G.o.d possesses of you--but a living idea, because the idea of a G.o.d who is living and conscious of Himself, of a G.o.d-Consciousness, and apart from what you are in the society of G.o.d you are nothing.

How to define G.o.d? Yes, that is our longing. That was the longing of the man Jacob, when, after wrestling all the night until the breaking of the day with that divine visitant, he cried, "Tell me, I pray thee, thy name!" (Gen. x.x.xii. 29). Listen to the words of that great Christian preacher, Frederick William Robertson, in a sermon preached in Trinity Chapel, Brighton, on the 10th of June, 1849: "And this is our struggle--_the_ struggle. Let any true man go down into the deeps of his own being, and answer us--what is the cry that comes from the most real part of his nature? Is it the cry for daily bread? Jacob asked for that in his _first_ communing with G.o.d--preservation, safety. Is it even this--to be forgiven our sins? Jacob had a sin to be forgiven, and in that most solemn moment of his existence he did not say a syllable about it. Or is it this--'Hallowed be Thy name'? No, my brethren. Out of our frail and yet sublime humanity, the demand that rises in the earthlier hours of our religion may be this--'Save my soul'; but in the most unearthly moments it is this--'Tell me thy name.' We move through a world of mystery; and the deepest question is, What is the being that is ever near, sometimes felt, never seen; that which has haunted us from childhood with a dream of something surpa.s.singly fair, which has never yet been realized; that which sweeps through the soul at times as a desolation, like the blast from the wings of the Angel of Death, leaving us stricken and silent in our loneliness; that which has touched us in our tenderest point, and the flesh has quivered with agony, and our mortal affections have shrivelled up with pain; that which comes to us in aspirations of n.o.bleness and conceptions of superhuman excellence? Shall we say It or He? What is It? Who is He?

Those antic.i.p.ations of Immortality and G.o.d--what are they? Are they the mere throbbings of my own heart, heard and mistaken for a living something beside me? Are they the sound of my own wishes, echoing through the vast void of Nothingness? or shall I call them G.o.d, Father, Spirit, Love? A living Being within me or outside me? Tell me Thy name, thou awful mystery of Loveliness! This is the struggle of all earnest life."[43]

Thus Robertson. To which I must add this comment, that Tell me thy name is essentially the same as Save my soul! We ask Him His name in order that He may save our soul, that He may save the human soul, that He may save the human finality of the Universe. And if they tell us that He is called He, that He is the _ens realissimum_ or the Supreme Being or any other metaphysical name, we are not contented, for we know that every metaphysical name is an X, and we go on asking Him His name. And there is only one name that satisfies our longing, and that is the name Saviour, Jesus. G.o.d is the love that saves. As Browning said in his _Christmas Eve and Easter Day_,

For the loving worm within its clod, Were diviner than a loveless G.o.d Amid his worlds, I will dare to say.

The essence of the divine is Love, Will that personalizes and eternalizes, that feels the hunger for eternity and infinity.

It is ourselves, it is our eternity that we seek in G.o.d, it is our divinization. It was Browning again who said, in _Saul_,

'Tis the weakness in strength that I cry for! my flesh that I seek In the G.o.dhead!

But this G.o.d who saves us, this personal G.o.d, the Consciousness of the Universe who envelops and sustains our consciousnesses, this G.o.d who gives human finality to the whole creation--does He exist? Have we proofs of His existence?

This question leads in the first place to an enquiry into the cleaning of this notion of existence. What is it to exist and in what sense do we speak of things as not existing?

In its etymological signification to exist is to be outside of ourselves, outside of our mind: _ex-sistere_. But is there anything outside of our mind, outside of our consciousness which embraces the sum of the known? Undoubtedly there is. The matter of knowledge comes to us from without. And what is the mode of this matter? It is impossible for us to know, for to know is to clothe matter with form, and hence we cannot know the formless as formless. To do so would be tantamount to investing chaos with order.

This problem of the existence of G.o.d, a problem that is rationally insoluble, is really identical with the problem of consciousness, of the _ex-sistentia_ and not of the _in-sistentia_ of consciousness, it is none other than the problem of the substantial existence of the soul, the problem of the perpetuity of the human soul, the problem of the human finality of the Universe itself. To believe in a living and personal G.o.d, in an eternal and universal consciousness that knows and loves us, is to believe that the Universe exists _for_ man. For man, or for a consciousness of the same order as the human consciousness, of the same nature, although sublimated, a consciousness that is capable of knowing us, in the depth of whose being our memory may live for ever.

Perhaps, as I have said before, by a supreme and desperate effort of resignation we might succeed in making the sacrifice of our personality provided that we knew that at our death it would go to enrich a Supreme Personality; provided that we knew that the Universal Soul was nourished by our souls and had need of them. We might perhaps meet death with a desperate resignation or with a resigned despair, delivering up our soul to the soul of humanity, bequeathing to it our work, the work that bears the impress of our person, if it were certain that this humanity were destined to bequeath its soul in its turn to another soul, when at long last consciousness shall have become extinct upon this desire-tormented Earth. But is it certain?

And if the soul of humanity is eternal, if the human collective consciousness is eternal, if there is a Consciousness of the Universe, and if this Consciousness is eternal, why must our own individual consciousness--yours, reader, mine--be not eternal?

In the vast all of the Universe, must there be this unique anomaly--a consciousness that knows itself, loves itself and feels itself, joined to an organism which can only live within such and such degrees of heat, a merely transitory phenomenon? No, it is not mere curiosity that inspires the wish to know whether or not the stars are inhabited by living organisms, by consciousnesses akin to our own, and a profound longing enters into that dream that our souls shall pa.s.s from star to star through the vast s.p.a.ces of the heavens, in an infinite series of transmigrations. The feeling of the divine makes us wish and believe that everything is animated, that consciousness, in a greater or less degree, extends through everything. We wish not only to save ourselves, but to save the world from nothingness. And therefore G.o.d. Such is His finality as we feel it.

What would a universe be without any consciousness capable of reflecting it and knowing it? What would objectified reason be without will and feeling? For us it would be equivalent to nothing--a thousand times more dreadful than nothing.

If such a supposition is reality, our life is deprived of sense and value.

It is not, therefore, rational necessity, but vital anguish that impels us to believe in G.o.d. And to believe in G.o.d--I must reiterate it yet again--is, before all and above all, to feel a hunger for G.o.d, a hunger for divinity, to be sensible of His lack and absence, to wish that G.o.d may exist. And it is to wish to save the human finality of the Universe.

For one might even come to resign oneself to being absorbed by G.o.d, if it be that our consciousness is based upon a Consciousness, if consciousness is the end of the Universe.

"The wicked man hath said in his heart, There is no G.o.d." And this is truth. For in his head the righteous man may say to himself, G.o.d does not exist! But only the wicked can say it in his heart. Not to believe that there is a G.o.d or to believe that there is not a G.o.d, is one thing; to resign oneself to there not being a G.o.d is another thing, and it is a terrible and inhuman thing; but not to wish that there be a G.o.d exceeds every other moral monstrosity; although, as a matter of fact, those who deny G.o.d deny Him because of their despair at not finding Him.

And now reason once again confronts us with the Sphinx-like question--the Sphinx, in effect, is reason--Does G.o.d exist? This eternal and eternalizing person who gives meaning--and I will add, a human meaning, for there is none other--to the Universe, is it a substantial something, existing independently of our consciousness, independently of our desire? Here we arrive at the insoluble, and it is best that it should be so. Let it suffice for reason that it cannot prove the impossibility of His existence.

To believe in G.o.d is to long for His existence and, further, it is to act as if He existed; it is to live by this longing and to make it the inner spring of our action. This longing or hunger for divinity begets hope, hope begets faith, and faith and hope beget charity. Of this divine longing is born our sense of beauty, of finality, of goodness.

Let us see how this may be.

FOOTNOTES:

[38] Lecture I., p. 36. London, 1895, Black.

[39] _No quiero acordarme_, a phrase that is always a.s.sociated in Spanish literature with the opening sentence of _Don Quijote: En an lugar de la Mancha de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme_.--J.E.C.F.

[40] W. Hermann, _Christlich systematische Dogmatik_, in the volume ent.i.tled _Systematische christliche Religion. Die Kultur der Gegenwart_ series, published by P. Hinneberg.

[41] _Dieu a fait l'homme a son image, mais l'homme le lui a bien rendu_, Voltaire.--J.E.C.F.

[42] _Vivir un mundo_.