[1] "The Old Faith and the New," vol. i. p. 107.

[2] Ibid. vol. i. p. 3.

[3] Ibid. vol. i. p. 158.

[4] "The Old Faith and the New," vol. ii. p. 35.

[5] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 19.

[6] "The Old Faith and the New," vol. ii. p. 213.

[7] Ueberweg's "History of Philosophy," vol. ii. p. 41.

[8] Ueberweg's "Logic," p. 91.

[9] This is mournfully conceded by Geo. Henry Lewes (an avowed Comtean): "No army of argument, no accumulation of contempt, no historical exhibition of the fruitlessness of its effort, has sufficed to extirpate the tendency toward metaphysical speculation. Although its doctrines have become a scoff (except among the valiant few), its method still survives, still prompts to renewed research, and still misleads some men of science. In vain History points to the failure of twenty centuries; the metaphysician admits the fact, but appeals to History in proof of the persistent passion which no failure can dismay; and hence draws confidence in ultimate success. A cause which is vigorous after centuries of defeat is a cause baffled but not hopeless, beaten but not subdued. The ranks of its army may be thinned, its banners torn and mud-stained; but the indomitable energy breaks out anew, and the fight is continued."—"Problems of Life and Mind," p. 7.

[10] "Every religion may be defined as an à priori theory of the universe. The surrounding facts being given, some form of agency is alleged which, in the opinion of these alleging it, accounts for these facts.... Nay, even that which is commonly regarded as the negation of all religion—even positive Atheism, comes within the definition; for it, too, in asserting the self-existence of Space, Matter, and Motion, which it regards as adequate causes of every appearance, propounds an à priori theory from which it holds the facts to be deducible."—Spencer, "First Principles," p. 43.

[11] "Philosophy begins in wonder: he was not a bad genealogist who said that Isis, the messenger of Heaven, is the child of Thaumas (Wonder); for Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher."—Plato, "Theætetus," § 155.

[12] Plato, "Timæus," § 9.

[13] Büchner, "Matter and Force," pp. 1-27.

[14] Spencer, "First Principles," pp. 235, 236.

[15] Hegel, "Philosophy of Religion," vol. i. p. 201.

[16] "Spiritual Philosophy of Coleridge," by Green, vol. i. pp. 1, 2.

[17] Isaiah xliii. 13; Exod. iii. 14: "I am that I am."

[18] "We can see the sun, we can greet it in the morning and mourn for it in the evening, without necessarily naming it, that is to say, comprehending it under some general notion. It is the same with the perception of the Divine. It may have been perceived, men may have welcomed it or yearned after it, long before they knew how to name it."—Max Müller, "Science of Language," 2d Series, p. 454.

[19] "Meditations," vol. i. p. 313.

[20] "Works," vol. i. p. 218; vol. v. p. 18; Hamilton's "Philosophy," p. 176; Murphy's "Scientific Basis of Faith," p. 130.

[21] Morell, "Philosophy of Religion," p. 3.

[22] Müller, "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. i. p. 28.

[23] Green, "Spiritual Philosophy," vol. i. p. 2.

[24] Morell, "Psychology," p. 61.

[25] Cousin, "Elements of Psychology," p. 452.

[26] Martineau's "Essays," p. 188, 2d Series.

[27] "Timæus," ch. ix.

[28] "Philebus," § 50.

[29] "Sophist," § 72.

[30] "Timæus," ch. ix. x.

[31] "Correlation and Conservation of Forces," p. 199.

[32] "Outlines of Astronomy," pp. 233-4; also "Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects," pp. 462, 475.

[33] "Human Physiology," p. 542; also art. "On Mutual Relation of Vital and Physical Forces," Philosophical Transactions, p. 730.

[34] "Natural Selection," p. 368. See Mivart, "Genesis of Species," p. 298; Laycock, "Mind and Brain," vol. i. pp. 225, 304; Murphy, "Scientific Basis of Faith," p. 51.

[35] "Reign of Law," pp. 123, 129; Cooke, "Religion and Chemistry," p. 340.

[36] "First Principles," p. 235. See also Challis, "Principles of Mathematics and Physics," p. 681.

[37] Comte, "L'Ensemble du Positivisme," p. 46.

[38] M'Vicar, "Sketch of Philosophy," p. 8.

[39] These terms are frequently and somewhat loosely employed as synonymous; but in reality each has its own peculiar shade of meaning. Here we employ the term Absolute to denote the underived, independent, incomposite, and immutable. Infinite is employed to denote the absence of all limitation—that which can not be bounded, measured, quantified. Perfect is employed to denote that which is complete, finished, self-sufficient—that which has no defect and no want. The unconditioned is a genus, of which the Infinite, Absolute, and Perfect are species—not conditioned by quantity, kind, or degree. For the Infinite there are no limits; for the Absolute no parts, no equals, and no change; for the Perfect no wants. See Calderwood, "Philosophy of the Infinite," p. 179; North American Review, Oct. 1864, pp. 407, 417.

[40] Saisset, "Modern Pantheism," vol. ii. p. 70.

[41] "The idea of God is the unity of three factors—the logical (intelligence), the ethical (love), and the physical (might)."—Dr. Martensen, "Die Christliche Ethik," § 19.

[42] Dr. Whedon, Meth. Qu. Review, Jan. 9, 1871, p. 164.

[43] As related to the purpose of Redemption. God the Father is the moving or actuating cause of Redemption, God the Son is the revealing and actualizing cause, and God the Spirit is the active and efficient cause. Father = Love; Logos = Revealer; Spirit = Life.

[44] The Justice, Truth, and Faithfulness of God are not properly regarded as attributes of the Divine nature, but as modes of Divine conduct or action, determined by the Holiness and Goodness of God. So Grace, Mercy, Compassion are but modifications of Divine Love viewed in relation to sinful, guilty, and suffering creatures, and their consideration belongs not to the doctrine of Creation, but of Redemption.

[45] Whedon, "On the Freedom of the Will," p. 316.

[46] For an exhaustive discussion of this subject, see Müller, "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. ii. pp. 199-215.

[47] We make no pretensions to critical acquaintance with the Hebrew, but will hazard this suggestion, עָשָׂה (aysah) is the most general term; its fundamental meaning is to do, to perform, to work, and may embrace both origination and formation. בָּרָא (bara) and יִצֶר (yetsar) are more specific, the former denoting the origination of a new essence or substance, the latter formation or fashioning out of pre-existing materials. Thus we read in Gen. ii. 7: "And the Lord God formed [יִצֶר] man [i. e., the body of man] out of the dust of the earth." Here we have pre-existing matter. But in Gen. i. 27 we read, "And God created [בָּרָא] man [i. e., the soul of man] in his own image." Here we have no pre-existing material, for matter can not bear the image of God. (See Acts xvii. 29.) Bara must therefore here mean origination. Even in Gen. i. 21, where bara is employed in regard to the production of living creatures, we have the origination of something new: for vitality, sensitivity, perception are not properties of matter, neither can they be educed from any organization of matter.

[48] We can not help regarding this mode of reasoning as superficial and misleading. Gen. i. 27, "So God created [בָּרָא] man in his own image," refers to the spiritual nature of man which alone can bear the "image of God," and must mean origination. Gen. ii. 7, "And the Lord God formed [עָשָׂה] man out of the dust of the earth," refers solely to the body of man. This distinction can scarcely be accidental.

[49] James i. 17.

[50] Rom. xi. 36.

[51] Lange's "Commentary," Introduction.

[52] We can not overlook the connection between Gen. i. 1 and John i. 1, and close our eyes to the light which the later announcement throws upon the former. It is most probable that by ἐν ἀρχῇ John means ἐν αἰῶνι, in eternity—that is, before all time-succession began. Ἀρχή here can have no relation to time. And why may we not accept the Platonic notion of "a creation in eternity," which itself constituted a beginning of time? Prior to finite succession and change, there can be no time.

[53] "God being limited neither in nor by any other existence, is infinite in a positive sense, inasmuch as his will alone imposes all limitation."—Ulrici, "Gott und die Natur," 1862, p. 535.

[54] Natura—that which is produced or born, that which is always becoming. Essentia—the fundamental, permanent being. See note 1 (Next footnote.)

[55] "We Arminians hold that God is freely good from eternity to eternity, just as man is good freely and alternatively for one hour. Infinite knowledge does not insure infinite goodness. Infinite knowledge (which is a very different thing from infinite wisdom) is not an anterior cause of infinite goodness; but both Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Holiness consist in and result from God's volitions eternally, and absolutely, perfectly coinciding with, not the Wrong, but the Right. God's infinite knowledge = omniscience, is an eternal, fixed, necessary be-ing; God's wisdom and holiness are an eternal volitional BECOMING; an eternally free, alternative putting forth of choices for the Right. God's omniscience is self-existent; God's wisdom and holiness are self-made, or eternally and continuously being made. God is necessarily omnipotent and all-knowing through eternity, but God is truly wise and holy through all eternity, but no more necessarily than a man through a single hour. God is holy therefore, not automatically, but freely; not merely with infinite excellence, but with infinite meritoriousness."—Whedon, "Freedom of the Will," p. 316.

[56] Lange, "Commentary" on Gen. i., p. 180.

[57] Poynting, quoted by Martineau in "Nature and God," p. 153.

[58] See also Heb. i.

[59] See Müller's "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. ii. p. 146.

[60] Saisset, "Modern Pantheism," vol. ii. p. 119.

[61] "History of Modern Philosophy," vol. i. p. 94.

[62] "Essays," 1st Series, pp. 158, 161.

[63] "First Principles," p. 37.

[64] Müller, "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. ii. p. 215.

[65] "Essays," 1st Series, p. 161.

[66] "Essays," 1st Series, p. 203.

[67] "Deus durat semper et adest ubique, et existendo semper et ubique durationem et spatium, æternitatem et infinitatem constituit."—Principia, Schol. Gen.

[68] "Modern Pantheism," vol. i. p. 180.

[69] "Intuitions," p. 213.

[70] "System of Christian Doctrine," by Nitzsch, pp. 156-7.

[71] "The Human Intellect," p. 565.

[72] July, 1864.

[73] Stewart's Dissertation in "Encyclopædia Britannica," vol. i. p. 142.

[74] Even physical science rejects the notion of "pure space," and it may be reasonably doubted whether "absolute vacuity" has any place in the universe of God. As a question of science, the existence of the "vacuum" is doubtful. "It may be safely asserted that hitherto all attempts at producing a perfect vacuum have failed."—Grove, "Correlation of Physical Forces," p. 134. The general tendency of science is toward a denial of its existence (p. 137). As a question of metaphysics, the human reason can only find satisfaction in believing in a spiritual Being, a living Will which "inhabiteth eternity and immensity," and "filleth all in all" with living and life-giving fullness, so that "in Him we live and move and have being."—McCosh, "Intuitions of the Mind," p. 225.

[75] "By empty space I mean distance, I mean direction: that steeple is a mile off, and not here where I sit, and it lies southeast and not north."—Herschel, "Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects," p. 455.

[76] Taylor, "Physical Theory of Another Life," p. 26.

[77] "The idea of space—the idea of extension—is the logical condition of the admission of the idea of the body."—"History of Philosophy," vol. ii. p. 217.

[78] "Extension is only another name for space."—"Lectures on Metaphysics," vol. ii. p. 113.

[79] "Space and extension are convertible terms."—"First Principles," p. 48.

[80] See "Intuitions," p. 223, where the terms are employed as synonymous.

[81] "L'immensité ou l'unité de l'espace."—Cousin, "Histoire de la Philosophie du xviii^me Siècle," p. 121. "Infinity of extension."—McCosh, "Intuitions," p. 223. "Infinite immensity of space."—Hamilton, "Discussions," p. 36.

[82] "Lectures," vol. ii. pp. 114, 167.

[83] "Intuitions," p. 202.

[84] "Lectures," vol. ii. p. 169.

[85] "Lectures," vol. ii. p. 170

[86] "Discussions," etc., p. 36.

[87] "Philosophy," p. 357.

[88] "Intuitions," p. 208.

[89] "History of Philosophy," vol. i. p. 77.

[90] "History of Philosophy," vol. ii. p. 224.

[91] "When the succession of ideas ceases, our perception of duration ceases with it."—Locke, "Essays" (bk. ii. ch. xiv. § 4).

[92] Time and duration are confounded by McCosh ("Intuitions," p. 223), by Mahan ("Intellectual Philosophy," p. 22), and by Cousin ("History of Philosophy," vol. ii. p. 229).

[93] "Absolute time is eternity" (Cousin, "History of Philosophy," vol. i. p. 77). "L'éternité ou l'unité de temps" ("Histoire de la Philosophie du xviii^me Siècle," p. 121). "Eternity is the synonym of pure time" (North American Review, April, 1864, p. 115).

[94] "Mind is nothing but the series of our feelings as they actually occur, with the addition of infinite possibilities of feeling" ("Examination of Hamilton's Philosophy," vol. i. p. 253).

[95] "Intuitions," p. 206.

[96] "Intuitions," p. 206.

[97] "Intuitions," p. 252.

[98] Hamilton's "Lectures," vol. ii. p. 527.

[99] McCosh, "Intuitions," p. 205; Saisset, "Mod. Pantheism," vol. i. p. 193.

[100] Hamilton's "Logic," p. 55.

[101] "Intuitions," p. 211. See also Porter's "Human Intellect," p. 567.

[102] "Intuitions," p. 211.

[103] Strange as it may sound, Dr. McCosh says, at p. 202, that "we have an immediate knowledge of space in the concrete by the senses," and here he asserts that "space is not a substance," and therefore can not be perceived.

[104] "Opuscula," p. 752.

[105] "Discussions," p. 36.

[106] "Philosophy of the Infinite," pp. 319, 331.

[107] "Modern Pantheism," vol. i. p. 192.

[108] "Philosophy of the Infinite," p. 300.

[109] "Philosophy of the Infinite," p. 331.

[110] Müller, "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. i. p. 243.

[111] "Familiar Lectures," p. 455.

[112] Martineau's "Essays," 1st Series, p. 158.

[113] Martineau's "Essays," 1st Series, p. 161.

[114] "Institutes of Theology," vol. i. pp. 76, 79.

[115] "Natural Theology," p. 23. The practice so common among writers of Natural Theology of fixing upon one line of proof of the being of God as the only valid method, and then disparaging and endeavoring to show the invalidity of all others, is highly reprehensible. The strongest arguments employed by the Atheists have been culled from the writings of these eccentric theologians. In the celebrated public discussion between Mr. Holyoake, the leader of the Secularists in England, and Mr. Brindley, "On the existence of God," the most telling arguments of Mr. Holyoake were drawn from the standard works on Natural Theology. How much more rational and commendable is the course of the philosopher: "There are different proofs of the existence of God. The consoling result of my studies is that these different proofs are more or less strict in form, but they have all a depth of truth which needs only to be disengaged and put in a clear light in order to give incontestable authority. Every thing leads to God. There is no bad way of arriving at Him, but we go to Him by different paths."—Cousin, "History of Philosophy," vol. ii. p. 418.

The argument for the being of a God in its completeness is at once Ontological and Cosmological, Etiological and Teleological. It is in the concurrence and synthesis of these separate but harmonious lines of proof that we have an unanswerable demonstration. For ourselves, we are convinced, with Neitzsch, that the Ontological proof is first and last; they who seek to invalidate this cut the ground from under all the rest.

[116] Herschel's "Outlines of Astronomy," p. 511.

[117] North American Review, October, 1864, p. 428.

[118] "By finite we generally mean that which is within reach, or may be brought within reach of our senses.... The powers, therefore, of our senses and mind place the limit to the finite, but those magnitudes which severally transcend these limits, by reason of their being too great or too small, we call infinite and infinitesimal."—Price, "Infinitesimal Calculus," vol. i. pp. 12, 13.

[119] Martineau, "Essays," 1st Series, p. 161.

[120] Hamilton, "Metaphysics," vol. ii. p. 539.

[121] Argyll, "Reign of Law," p. 117.

[122] "Essays," 1st Series, p. 206.

[123] "Lectures," vol. ii. p. 406.

[124] "Prolegomena," p. 267-269.

[125] See Locke's "Human Understanding," bk. iv. ch. x., where a similar line of argument is pursued.

[126] Schellen, "Spectrum Analysis," p. 45.

[127] Sir John Herschel, "Natural Philosophy," § 28.

[128] "On Molecules," Lecture at the British Association at Bradford, in Nature, vol. viii. p. 441.

[129] "God is not merely spirit, but He has upon Himself a realistic nature. God did not create the world out of an absolute nothing. The something out of which God created it are his eternal potentialities—not merely logical (merely conceived by God), but at the same time also physical (essentially in God existing) potentialities. In these δυνάμεις God possesses both the something out of which He makes the world, and also the forces, instruments, and means by which He produces it. In this sense it is literally true: All things are of God (Rom. xi. 33). This admission of a supramaterial physis in God—this spiritual realism—furnishes not only an escape from the errors of a lifeless materialism and of an abstract spiritualism, but is the synthesis of the partial truth that is in both."—Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1873, p. 191.

[130] Lange's Commentary, "Preliminary Essay," p. 126.

[131] See Whewell's "History of Scientific Ideas," vol. ii. p. 287.

[132] Ch. XXXIV.

[133] Whewell's "History of Inductive Sciences," vol. ii. p. 593.