CHAPTER IX

We have now travelled over the ground which the plan of this essay required us to review. We shall not forget that in such an extensive field the discussion could only be cursory in its nature. In a few concluding remarks we may briefly recapitulate some of the main points which have come before us, and indicate the general conclusions which have been reached.

The two great questions with which Theism is concerned are the origin of the idea of God in the human mind, and the proof or vindication of the divine existence. These questions, though in their nature closely related, must be kept apart in the course of their discussion. In regard to the former of these questions, we found that the origin of theistic ideas lies, primarily, in neither natural evolution, in divine objective revelation, nor in any kind of a reasoning process. Itis to be found in intuition properly understood, and it is given to us in its primitive form as the native deliverance of our very constitution. The ground or cause of the idea in the human mind, it was hinted, may be found in God’s own testimony, as an inspiration in the spirit of man, to His own actual existence,

The methods of proof which deal with the second great question of Theism were considered in order. These methods were arranged in eight classes, though some of them are so closely related that they almost run into one another. In several of the

methods we have nearly the same principle of inference, but it is applied to different materials of proof. These proofs were merely outlined, and an estimate given of their respective import and value.

In regard to what we should expect from these so-called proofs, a remark may be made. Some writers have set too high a value upon them, and others have put too low an estimate on what they may do for us. Let us try to secure the golden mean here, and, perhaps, we will then be as near the truth as we can get.

In the first place, it is not the function of these proofs to originate Theism, or to produce the idea of God in the mind. It is admitted that by means of argument and the force of reasons a sceptic may be led to believe in God. But, observe that this cannot mean that he had no idea of God in his mind previous to the effect which argument may have had upon him. Even when he denied God, if his denial was intelligent, he necessarily had some idea of the Being whose existence he was denying. Scepticism does not lie against the reality of the idea of God, but rather against his actual or objective existence. This goes to show that reasoning or proof does not produce the idea, nor explain its origin in the human mind.

In the second place, it is not the function of these methods of proof to demonstrate the existence of God with strict logical precision. Mathematical certainty and moral certainty are different in their nature. The methods of theistic proof give us the latter rather than the former. With the exception of the eso-theistic, and certain forms of the onto-theistic method, all the methods proceed on the principles of induction, causation and sufficient reason, Though the proof moves in what may be called the sphere of probability, yet it may be of the very strongest and most cogent kind. We should observe, also, that when we make an induction, and bring the theistic hypothesis to explain any given problem we use the idea of God, and make the hypothesis of the objective validity of that idea the unknown x which solves the equation,

This being the case, the function of proof and reasoning about God is really to vindicate the rational character of the intuitive or native conviction of the human mind that there is a divine Being. Ifour discussion of the various methods of proof has gone to show, in any satisfactory way, that Theism is a rational belief, and that its denial is at least unreasonable, then we have secured, on grounds of reason, all we require in order to provide a rational basis for Christianity. If we find, therefore, that the theistic conception ofthe natural world, of man, and of society and its history is consonant with reason, and that it sheds light on many of the dark problems which come before us all along the way, then we shall be more than justified in entertaining this conception. We shall be content, moreover, to entertain it till a better is given us. If the Theist holds in his hands the golden key which enables him to unlock mysteries before which the atheist must stand helpless, and the sceptic lock on with wonder, surely we shall be wise if we join company withthe Theist. We shall be contented if the discussion of this essay has helped to show that Theism is capable of rational confirmation, and that it has unquestioned right to claim that it is a rcasonable and well founded belief. If we have shown that it is the atheist, not the Theist, who is illogical, our work ‘has been successful,

In the third place, it is to be observed that the discussion of Theism not only vindicates the rational nature of theistic belief, but it also enlarges and defines the primitive knowledge of, and belief in, God which is connatural in the human mind. As we have seen, this original primitive knowledge is at first little more than a vague conviction //af God is, rather than a clear knowledge of what God is. The theistic conviction is at first a vague feeling, a gentle whisper, or a distant echo. This conviction attests or witnesses to the Being towards which that feeling points, and to the Being whose voice is heard in the secret recesses of the soul. The objective revelation of the Bible comes in to enlarge and make

clear this intuitive belief. Reasoning in all proper forms also renders important service in the same direction. One of the great uses of the methods of proof, which we have been discussing, is to unfold to us some of the attributes of God. God being given in intuition, can be understood by reason ; and what He is may be made known, in part at least, thereby. If we had space to follow out this remark, we would see how each one of the methods comes with its tribute of knowledge to increase the degree of definiteness which the idea of God may assume, Being, spirituality, unity, efficiency, consciousness, personality, intelligence, infinity, moral perfection, and righteous government will all clearly emerge as the result of our discussion. Then, further, if we reach by means of the methods of proof this enlarged and definite knowledge of God, it is clear that many false theories which claim to be theistic must be rejected. Not only is atheism excluded by the very conditions of the problem, but materialism, pantheism, and even deism aré also ruled out by an adequate rational presentation of the methods of proof, The conception of one personal God, who is first cause and moral governor, thus clearly appears above the horizon. Revelation and Reason unite in enlarging our primitive theistic conviction into a well defined monotheistic belief.

In the last place, a good deal might be said in regard to the best order in which to present these various proofs, so as to secure their greatest argumentative force. We cannot go fully into this discussion now, however, One line of proof may have most weight with one man, and another line with another man. One mode of reasoning may be more effective against one false view, and another against another error. We may rejoice that, ‘vhen all the proofs are massed together, they form such a strong array of evidence that a man cannot reject it without doing violence to the deepest convictions of his intellectual and moral nature. À man may deny that there is a God, just as a man may put his hand in the fire, but in both cases violence is done.

Our discussion enables us also to see something of the relation subsisting between God and the universe. The universe must be from God, and hence it is not self-existent, nor is it eternal. The natural order of the physical universe, and the moral order under which man is placed, alike testify to the truth of this conclusion. Nature is not all there is; but nature, is only because God is. And again, since nature has the marks of order and design, since man has rational, moral and religious intuitions, and since human history shows plain marks of a moral purpose running through the ages, we believe that we are justified in concluding that God, who is first cause, real being, and absolute efficiency, possesses those attributes which these features of nature and of man unfold. We thus reach a conclusion, on good rational grounds, which lays a strong and suitable foundation for revelation and redemption to rest on, as they proceed to unfold the Christian system. That foundation is at once a rational theology and a theistic cosmology.