But while the growth of reason and the rise of speculation everywhere destroy poly theism, they do not necessarily substitute a genuine monotheism—the doctrine, that is to say, of one living and true God, infinite in power, wisdom, goodness, and truth, a free personal Being exalted above the world, and apart from it, yet intimately related to all its creatures, who "suffereth not a sparrow to fall to the ground without his permission." This is the doctrine of Christian theism, as opposed alike to polytheism (the doctrine of many gods), pantheism (the doctrine that all things are God; that God is a unity, yet only a unity of comprehension, not a self-subsistent and independent unity), and atheism (the assertion that there is no God).
The course of argument on which the theistic conclusion supports itself may be sketched as follows: There are everywhere in the world the traces of order; a unity of plan or design, shown in ninny beautiful effects, pervades creation. Science is always more unfolding it. Of the fact of this order or unity of plan, there is no question. The progress of science, if nothing else, has effectually exploded the old dualistic or poly theistic conception of nature. What appeared to be the result of opposing principles, is really found to be the issue of general laWs working on some great although unex plored scheme of harmony. There is no disturbance, no disorder; amidst the infinite diversity of nature--order reigns universally.
But this "order," what is it? The mere recognition of order does not necessarily imply the recognition of God—of a " Being all-powerful, wise, and good, by whom every thing exists.' The . materialist and pantheist equally- admit the fact of order, hut equally deny the theistic conclusion founded upon it; and the argument, accordingly, is carried up from nature and its facts to,a higher region of discussion. 'Whence arises the conception of order—of design? Nature illustrates it, but nature does not itself give it. The general laws of which science speaks so much pervade all phenomena of creation,' but they are not a part of these phenomena. "Order" and law •are ideas which we convey to nature, not which nature brings to us. They come from within, not from without. It is with mind, and not with matter that we start, The latter in itself pre sents a mere series of endless movements. It is in the presence of mind only that it assumes meaning and order. Mind is the true image of the Deity. We discern causa tion in nature, because we ourselves are agents, conscious of exerting power. We dis cern order in nature, because we everywhere bring our conceptions into a unity, and apprehend our several modes of consciousness with reference to the indivisible self which they all involve. "In our life alone does nature live." "It is from the little world of our own consciousness, with its many objects marshaled in their array under the rule of the one conscious mind, that we are led to the thought of the great universe beyond—that we conceive this also as a world of order, and as being such by virtue of its relation to an and presiding mind." The existence of Deity, therefore, is a postulate of the human consciousness. Recognize a living mind in man, independent of matter—a rational will, as constituting the essential and distinguishing element of his being—and the inference is inevitable of an infinite mind—a supreme will governing the world. A true natural theology is based upon a true psychology. A philosophy which denies to man a higher existence than nature, which would make his rational consciousness the mere' growth of material conditions, leaves no ground of argument for the existence of Deity—for, as Jacobi says: "Nature reveals only fate, only an indissoluble chain of causes (sequences), without beginning and without end, excluding with equal necessity both providence and chance. Working without will, she takes counsel neither of the good nor of the
beautiful; creating nothing, she casts up from her dark abyss only eternal transforma tions of herself, unconsciously and without end. But man reveals God—for man, by his intelligence, rises above nature, and in virtue of this intelligence, is conscious of himself, as a power not•bnly independent df, but opposed to; nature, and capable of resisting, conquering, and controlling her. As man has a living faith in this power superior to nature, which dwells in him, so has he belief in God—a feeling, an experi ence of his existence. As he does not believe in this power, so does he not believe iu God; he sees, he experiences nought in existence but nature, and necessity, and fate." The argument for the existence of God rests, accordingly, on certain fundamental principles of our mental and moral being, such principles as causation and design, or final cause. It implies a spiritual philosophy of human nature. Apart from such a philosophy, theism has no argumentative basis, however it may preVail as a tradition or superstition. • But some philosophers have sought not merely to rest the argument for the existence of God upon such principles, but• to evolve it in all its completeness from them alone. From a single datum of consciousness—sometimes from a single datum of experience— they have tried to construct, by processes of mere abstract reasoning, a "demonstration of the being and attributes of God." This has been styled the a priori method of argu ment. although to all the arguments to which this name has been given it does not strictly apply. The mode of argument, again, which reasons from special effects in nature to a first cause, has been styled, in contradistinction, d posteriori. The argument from design, for example, as conducted by Paley and others, is d posteriors. The arguments of Descartes. and the "demonstration" of Dr. Samuel Clarke, are what have been termed a priori. Either of these modes of proof, taken by itself, has been rightly considered inconclusive by recent writers on natural theology. Mere a priori trains of reasoning fail to carry up the mind to any real and living conception of Deity; they yield merely a theoretical or abstract idea. Arguments•such as Paley's and the Bridge water treatises, again, are rather illustrations than arguments. They derive all their logical force from certain principles which are implied in their details, and without dmich these details could have no beaming on the existence of God. The very idea of Design itself is such a principle. It is the die which the mind stamps upon nature; it s not in nature itself. Any complete argument for the being of God, therefore, involves. squally a priori anti d posteriori, elements. The former are necessary as the rational foundation of the argument; the latter are necessary to illustrate, to give life and body to the general principles which lie at the foundation.
The Christian doctrine of the godhead will be considered under the several names of. TRINITY, SON OF GOD, and HOLY SPIRIT.