CHAPTER I. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 1. THE solution of the problem of finite existence is found first in a Self-sufficient Being, Infinite and Eternal, who is First Cause, or source of all existence besides. 2. The problem concerning the origin of being is first consciously raised in the search for satisfaction as to the source of personal existence, and of all existence recognised around. This problem is the expression of a purely intellectual demand. Its solution is not directly required by the practical necessities of life. There is, therefore, no reason to conclude that men uniformly grapple with the question, Does God exist? Acknowledgment of the Divine existence is, indeed, closely allied with the requirements of personal life. But deliberate testing of the grounds on which this acknowledgment is made, is a logical and metaphysical exercise on which there is no evidence to conclude that men uniformly enter. The raising of the question is evidence of the prevalence of philosophic thought. Confirmation of this appears in the fact that the formal discussions of the subject occur in treatises more or less philosophic in character. 3. The first and most conspicuous fact connected with all forms of existence whose origin we seek to have explained is, that all are finite and restricted. That limited and restricted existence is not self-sufficient is evident. To say so is merely to present an amplification of the first statement. For, to say that a being is limited, either in the measure of existence, or in the range of its powers, is to say that it is not selfsufficient. The intellect must raise the question, How has it been so limited? or, Whence has it the laws of its existence? And these questions arise, because their solution is not seen in the being itself. This is the root of the problem. When, further, it is said of any being that it is restricted, it is meant that there is other existence so related to this as to lend some help to its action, as moisture and heat contribute to the growth of a plant, or to impose a check upon its action, as resistance of the atmosphere wearies the runner. It is to be observed further, that it is in the highest order of finite being that restriction is most apparent. The more numerous the forms of effort the more the points of restraint. Whether, therefore, we recognise change of form and condition actually occurring, or merely limitation of being, we equally need an explanation of existence. 4. The logical alternatives open to us in seeking a solution of limited and restricted existence are two :-An infinite regress of finite causes; or, A self-sufficient, eternal first-cause. The four theories which have been offered come under the sweep of this duality of logical alternative. The Theistic doctrine, as a deliberate acceptance of the one alternative, stands in logical opposition to all the other three, which either accept the opposite alternative, or fail to deal with the essential features of the problem. 5. The regress of finite causes, each one of which shall be adequate to account for the measure of existence previously recognised, is logically the nearest solution, and meets the first demands of a logical process, under the law of Causality. To postulate a cause simply adequate to produce known existence, satisfies the immediate claim of intelligence. Accordingly, the truth of the conclusion may be accepted, merely as implying conformity with the laws of thought, though there be no means at command for verifying the supposition as to the existence of such a cause. The conclusion is thus of only a general nature, such as this,-In the cause there must be at least sufficient power to produce the effect. To this conclusion there can be no logical exception. Still, what is thus accepted, logically, but only hypothetically, is not conclusive. The intellectual requirement which raised the first question, now raises another as to the existence of this hypothetical cause, and so must continue as long as, in strict conformity with logical rule, only limited existence is postulated. In this line, therefore, there is no logical landing-place which can be conclusive, and no logical warrant for stopping. Besides, as the second stage in the process is only hypothetical, and there is no discovery of actual existence, by the contemplation of which we should have required to raise a fresh question, there is nothing better than a logical ground for procedure. As, then, it is impossible for us to continue the process to infinity, so is it impossible to rest in the belief that the history of existence has been progressively, what the order of thought must be regressively. And for these reasons, First, Logical consistency in reasoning cannot be identified with reality of existence. Second, As individual thinkers differ in the measure of their knowledge of the various forms of existence, and each one logically postulates a cause adequate only to meet the measure of his own knowledge, the logical result is distinct in each case. The line of thought is essentially connected with the individuality of the thinker, and has no further hold upon reality than that obtained in the facts from which the intellectual process takes its rise. Third, An infinite succession of finite causes involves a hypothesis of infinity, without even so much as a hypothetical basis on which to support it. At each stage in the logical process, there is at least the hypothetical basis of a definite amount of existence on which to postulate a sufficient cause. When the intellectual process is stopped, we have warrant for affirming merely our inability to continue the process for ever, and similarly our inability to affirm that at some stage we should reach a logical halting P place. If, to escape the discomfort arising from the want of any solution of the problem, we suggest an infinite regression of finite causes, the suggestion is not only gratuitous, but we raise a new problem. On what ground are we to affirm infinity of existence? We have made an affirmation without trace of logical warrant. Our difficulties in carrying through an intellectual process bear witness to the limits of our thought, but provide no foundation for a hypothesis as to existence. 6. In postulating a self-sufficient cause, infinite in power, and eternal in duration, we postulate more than is logically sufficient to account for known existence. If, therefore, there be any warrant for this affirmation, it cannot be obtained by a logical process. It cannot be logically competent to reason from finite existence to infinite,—from restricted existence to that which is self-sufficient.-Hamilton's Discussions, p. 15. If we rest somehow in the acknowledgment of a Self-sufficient Being, it cannot be as the conclusion of a discursive process. Attempts at demonstration, whether starting from the most general conceptions, such as being, or extension (a priori in form); or starting from the facts of experience (a posteriori in form), are equally unsuccessful, however great the ability which they discover. Either the whole question is assumed in starting, or the Infinite is not reached in concluding. Kant has clearly shown this, and has thus rendered special service to the Theistic doctrine.-Critique of Pure Reason, Transc. Dialec. II. III., Meiklejohn's Transl. p. 359. To begin, as Clarke did, with the proposition that 'something has existed from eternity,' is virtually to propose an argument, after having assumed what is to be proved.-Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, p. 8. Gillespie's form of the a priori argument, starting with the proposition, 'Infinity of Extension is necessarily existing,' is liable to the same objection, with the additional disadvantage of attributing a property of matter to the Deity.-The Necessary Existence of the Deity. The argument from Design is admirable as an inference from the character of the effect to the nature of the cause, but it pre-supposes the truth that there is a first cause. The argu ment of Des Cartes, as of Anselm, from the clearness of the idea of God, to the certainty of his existence, is incompetent, because we cannot lay down the canon that our thoughts are the criterion of reality, or that every clear idea must have its counter-part in an existing object.-Des Cartes, Meditation, III., and Principles of Philos. Pt. 1. xiv.; Anselm's Proslogium; for substance of the argument, see Ueberweg's Hist. 1. 383. As Kant has said, we cannot allow reason 'to persuade itself into a belief of the objective existence of a mere creation of its own thought.'-Pure Reason, Meiklejohn, 359. Some ideas are creations of our own thought; for example, the idea of a centaur. Knowing this, we are aware that it is incompetent to reason from the thought to the thing. But, can we distinguish between thoughts which are of our own creation, and thoughts which are not? If so, the relations of thoughts to things may vary, and we may be aware of the difference. Even if the clearness of our thought of God be no argument to the reality of the Divine existence, still the idea remains as a fact to be accounted for. I can explain, by simple combination of the attributes of different beings, how the idea of a centaur has been formed. But how shall we account for the idea of God within us? How has this conception been formed? Des Cartes has a strong position here. 'By the name of God I understand a substance infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created. But these properties are so great and excellent, that the more attentively I consider them, the less, as I feel persuaded, can the idea I have of them owe its origin to myself alone.'-Medit. III., Prof. Veitch's Transl. p. 45. See Plato's Republic, B. vI.; Jowett, II. p. 351; and the elder Fichte's Way of the Blessed Life, translated by Dr. Smith, p. 48. Still, it is not the idea or conception of God which |