THE LOGICAL IMPORT OF THE THEÏSTIC INTUITION

We now reach one of the mountain passes in the pathway along which we are pursuing the theistic inference. If we can cross the mountains and make good the claims of the evidence of intuition, Theism is sate on rational grounds. But the pathway here is dangerous. Those who hold the doctrine of the relativity of all human knowledge will here oppose our advance. Hamilton, with his doctrine of the unconditioned, will invite us to turn aside into the byway of nescience which ends in a wilderness, and he will bid us look by faith up to the heights which, he says, reason cannot climb. The positivist will also introduce himself and solemnly assure us that there is no way over the mountains, and that there is no use of trying to scale heights which are ever hidden from the senses in the clouds. Even the pantheïist will appear on the scene and with a devout air will inform us that we shall be sure to lose our way, if we try to cross the mountains.

At the outset, therefore, it is of the last importance to understand aright the logical function of the theistic intuition What special purpose does it serve? It neither forms nor proves its object ; it simply affests the reality of its object. Itis neither a mechanic nor a logician; it is only a witness. Its function is entirely different, therefore, from that of the general conception or necessary notion, and also from that of inductive generalization.' The conception frames its own object, and necessarily leaves the

question of its objective validity an open one. The intuition is rather a revelation of an object whose objective validity is attested by the very existence of the intuition. In this, too, lies the difference between the onto-theistic inference, and the evidence of the eso-theistic method. Again, the intuition is not an inductive inference or generalization from experience ; it is rather an axiom or postulate bearing testimony to the prior existence and reality of its object, Thus, again, the method of intuition differs logically from some of those methods already considered, where the inductive principle in different forms is the key to the inference. We will also observe how this view of the logical function of intuition agrees with what was said when we were examining the psychological nature of the theistic intuition. The ground of the intuition, it was suggested, may be found in the divine witness in man's soul to the actual existence of God. Itis a kind of inspiration, If, therefore, the intuition authoratively attests the objective validity of its object, then the suggestion formerly made regarding the psychology of the theistic intuition is confirmed.

Those who reject the evidence of intuition in regard to Theism, usually deny that we have a knowledge of anything but phenomenal sequences and their laws. This denial, of course, destroys the evidence by annihilating the object to which it relates. If this be done, then the problem of reconciling positive science and religion is solved by blotting out one side of the equation. But God is not phenomenal in the sense that his essential being is manifested to the senses. God is supersensible and noumenal. We may trace His footprints in nature, we may see his handwriting on the pages of human history, and we may find his doings inscribed in the record of the Bible, yet his real being is veiled in mystery so far as the senses are concerned. But, in order that God may manifest ‘himself or leave traces that he is, he must actually have existence, That such is the He state of the ter there can be no reasonable

"91 NS LC EN LT à Ne a LRU. PES SOI OO OL TN EME PAR ETAT NAT CT LAC acer

ile }

and by means of it the reality which is under or behind phenomena is attested as actually existing. We do not now raise the question as to the nature of this reality, but simply find the intuition bearing witness to it.

Perhaps the best way to vindicate the claims of the theistic intuition to have objective validity, is to draw evidence of a somewhat peculiar kind from the theories of those who reject intuition altogether, It is both interesting and instructive to observe the difficulties in which those who repudiate intuition find themselves, when trying to explain certain things in our knowledge, and in regard to the way in which it is acquired. Comte, for example, after constructing a most elaborate positive system, which is half science and half philosophy, goes on to set up ideal humanity as a kind of deity, and to prescribe, in connection with this deity, a very absurd cultus. In doing this Comte confesses the insufficiency of his system, and gives valuable testimony to the reality of the theistic intuition and of the instinct of worship, In like manner Spencer assumes a reverential tone, and speaks almost devoutly of the dark and inscrutable mystery which lies beyond phenomena and their laws. This unknown or unknowable something or some one, whether it be substance, power, or personality, is virtually set up on a throne, and we are exhorted to bow down before it and worship it as God. Here again we may compel Spencer to bear unwilling testimony to the reality of the theistic intuition, Harrison has pretty clearly shown that Spencer is inconsistent ; but we would combat Spencer, not as Harrison does by assuming the position of extreme positivism where even the reality of mystery is denied, but by presenting the theistic intuition with its accompanying attestation to the reality of its object as the proper solution.

So, again, we would press into service here the great scientific principle of which so much is made at the present day, and from which so much more is expected in the near future. This principle is generally termed ‘‘the correlation of forces,” According to this

doctrine, it is held that all force in the universe is one and uniform. It may manifest itself in various forms, but these are all convertible. This force lies at the root of all the changes going on in the universe ; and the mechanical, vital and chemical forms of this force are interchangable, Heat, light, electricity, gravitation, nerve energy and will power, are all the same in their essence, and along materialistic lines they are mutually convertible. Now, it is to be carefully observed here that force in its essential nature is never present to the senses. The senses only perceive the phenomenal sequences, while intuition attests that there ï; an ever present potency behind these sequences. Even if we grant the truth of the doctrine of correlation, which we do only within certain narrow physical limits, the question still remains as to the nature of this power or potency. Is it material or spiritual? In the latest deliverances of scientific thought, the necessity of admitting a spiritual background to phenomena is pressing itself more and more upon the minds of thoughtful men. But whether this force is material or spiritual, it is at least supersensuous, and as such is inconsistent with any system which confines knowledge to phenomena. In relation to this supersensible background intuition has a place and a function. Intuition attests the objective validity of this background, and thus leaves room for Theism,

In addition to the foregoing considerations, there are many others which point to the objective and noumenal validity of the theistic intuition, but we can only mention some of them. The feeling of dependence which so generally exists in the human mind testifies to a higher power outside of man's soul. The doctrine of the world-soul is perhaps another vague effort to give expression to the objective reality of the theistic intuition. The almost universal phe ja of religious worship among men of all races and ages is alsu mull of significance in this connection, But we cannot

enlarge on any of these lines of confirmation,

Assuming, therefore, that the theistic intuition has objective validity, and that the intuition is at once a revelation from and a witness to the actual existence of its object, it remains to define, as far as we can, what the nature of that object is.

We admit that the object which the intuition bears witness to may not be an infinite personal God. Hence, we cannot agree with Schelling and Calderwood, who hold that we have given in intuition an immediate knowledge of the infinite, or absolute, as a personal God. Noris the object attested to by the theistic intuition a mere matter of faith. Hence, we cannot agree with Jacobi and Hamilton, unless they mean by faith what we mean by intuition, Nor, again, is it a product of mere intellection, so that we are unable to agree with Fichte and others who take this view. The theistic intuition belongs to our religious nature, as we have already seen, and its object is what is usually termed the absolute or infinite viewed in relation to the mind of man. In this connection we may state that the terms infinite and absolute are taken to denote substantially the same thing ; and, hence, we cannot accept Hamilton’s usage of these words. He uses 21frite in the sense of that which can never be completed, and absolute in the sense of that which is complete in itself and unrelated, But the infinite should not be contrasted in this way with the absolute. The absolute is that which has no necessary dependence on or relation to any other thing ; the infinite is that which cannot be completed by any finite additions, for example, infinite space and time, The infinite is thus the absolute viewed in relation to the finite.

If we keep this in mind, it will enable us to avoid many diffculties, and it will clear the way for a better understanding of the nature of the object which the theistic intuition bears witness to, We pointed out in a former part of the essay that it was a mistake which caused much confusion to think of the infinite, or rather the absolute, under the category of substance. It should rather be ranked under the category of cause, If we so think of it, we have

the proper view of the object of the theistic intuition. It is notthe sum total of all reality, (ens realissimum) nor is it pure being, but it is a presence, or a potency, which ever comes before us in all our experiences. The absolute viewed as cause or efficiency is that, the reality of which the intuition attests We cannot say that it is a personal God, but the natural inference is that that which possesses power or efficiency, and is thus causal in its nature, must be an agent ; and, being an agent, it must be intelligent. In the presence of this power we ever find ourselves, and the theistic intuition enable us to go behind phenomena, with an unquestioned attestation that there is an absolute reality or potency ever in the act of revealing itself to us. So long as this position is securely held, Theism has nothing to fear either from pantheism or positivism. This potency cannot find its adequate ground either in that which is purely material or in that which is merely phenomienal. It must rest its feet in the temple of the spiritual,