DEFINITION AND DIVISION.
1. Natural Theology is that part of philosophy which treats of God and his attributes, as far as they can known by the light of reason. It differs from Sacred Theology, in that this latter studies God and His attributes by the light of divine revelation.
2. Natural Theology is divided into three principal parts: the first treats of the existence and unity of God, the second treats of the attributes of God in Himself; the third treats of the attributes of God in relation to the world or to creatures.
ART. I. -- PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
3. The existence of God is not immediately evident to us; but it can be demonstrated by the effects which He has produced. -- The existence of God is not immediately evident, because we do not behold the divine nature; but it can be proved by the effects which we know, for from any effect whatever we can prove the existence of a cause.
4. The existence of God is first proved by a metaphysical argument, which consists in deducing the existence of a Necessary Being from the existence of contingent beings. -- The beings in the world are contingent, that is, they have not given themselves existence. For it is manifest by experience that the human soul, as well as the beings that compose the sensible world, have had a beginning. Now, that which begins to exist must owe its existence to its own action, or to the action of another, or to nothing. But it cannot owe its existence to its own action, because before acting it must first exist; it cannot owe its existence to nothing, because that which is without existence cannot give it; therefore it must receive existence from a being distinct from itself. But this being, in turn, either is or is not contingent. If it is contingent, it also must have received existence by the action of another being; and so on indefinitely, until we arrive at a being that holds its existence from itself. Among the contingent beings of the world is man, who is intelligent and free, as has been proved in Psychology. Therefore the self-existent Being from whom man holds his existence and perfections must also be intelligent and free. But such a being is not only necessary but personal; he is God; therefore the existence of the world proves the existence of God. It is to no purpose to urge the possibility of an infinite series of contingent beings which would produce one another without the existence of a necessary being as their cause. This hypothesis is absurd, because contingent being is an effect; but an infinite series of effects without a cause is a contradiction; by multiplying the number of effects we make the existence of the cause more necessary. Equally futile are the arguments of materialists, pantheists, and evolutionists against the personality of God. The spirituality of man's soul being once established, the Christian dogma of a personal God is a necessary consequence of the application of the principle of causality to the existence of contingent intelligence.
5. The existence of God is also proved by a physical argument, which consists in deducing from the order that exists in the world the existence of a supreme Ordaining Cause. -- Order reigns in the world, as is proved by the relations existing between objects the most diverse, and by the subordination of the special end of each being to one single and supreme end. Now, order is an effect which supposes an ordaining cause. This cause, it is evident, cannot be found in the series of ordered beings, because then it would be itself an orderly effect. Moreover, the inherent forces of matter are utterly inadequate not only to produce the phenomena of life, as has been proved in Psychology, but even to account for the order reigning in the inorganic world; for every material force requires a previous adaptation of the particles of matter in order to produce an orderly effect. But if it is outside this series it must have a different nature. Since, then, they are contingent, their ordaining cause must be necessary Being. By the argument given in § 4, this necessary Being is shown to be a personal God. The existence of evil is sometimes opposed to this physical argument. But, admitting for the moment that evil constitutes a disorder, it would be only accidental, and would not destroy the general order. Therefore the argument remains in all its force. When God has thus been proved existing as ordaining cause, reason then tells us that it is only because of our ignorance that any thing appears to constitute a real disorder.
6. The third principal argument in favor of the existence of God is a moral argument, drawn from the assent given to this truth by all men in all times. -- There is no truth in favor of which the unanimous consent of the human race is more explicit or striking than that of the existence of God. Civilized peoples as well as the most barbarous, modern as well as the most ancient, have all believed the existence of God, as is proved by the history, the traditions, and the monuments of all ages and of all conntries. Now, this universal belief cannot be a fiction of men, nor an invention of priests or princes. If it were a creation of men, evidently we should know the time and the place in which it arose; bnt no one has been able to discover this. On the contrary, the oldest traditions of mankind represent the world as coming from the hands of God, and all accounts attest that the nearer we draw to Asia, the cradle of the human race, the more clearly is the existence of God professed. Neither can it be said that belief in the existence of God is an invention of princes or priests; for princes could not have given religious sanction to their laws if the people did not already believe in God; as to priests, the exercise of their functions evidently supposes this belief. Since, then, the unanimous assent to the existence of God is not of human origin, we must conclude that it is the result of a primitive tradition, and can have only God for its author. Even if some barbarous tribe should be discovered without religious ideas, which, however, has not as yet happened, it would no more invalidate the moral argument for God's existence than does the denial of atheists, materialists, pantheists, evolutionists, and the so-called progressive minds of to-day. The argument is based upon the fact that the belief has been professed by the great mass of mankind of all ages and nations.
ART. II. -- ATHEISM.
7. Atheism is either positive or negative; positive atheism is either theoretical or practical. -- The doctrine which denies the existence of God is called atheism Atheism is positive when it denies directly the reality of the supreme and divine Being; it is negative when it consists merely in ignorance of this divine Being.
Positive atheism is either theoretical or practical; the former teaches doctrinally either that God does not exist, or that we cannot know that He exists, and is therefore distinguished as dogmatic and sceptical atheism, or agnosticism; the latter is manifest in the conduct of those who live as if there were no God. Practical atheism is professed by a great number of men; but the same is not true of theoretical atheism and negative atheism. History and the accounts of travellers prove that there is no people, however ignorant and savage, that does not admit the existence of some divinity. It is manifest that those philosophers and writers who have gloried in teaching and professing atheism have not been sincere, and that they have proposed no other end than to favor the corruption of morals and to overthrow social order.
8. Atheism is a most absurd doctrine, most degrading, and most fruitful in fatal consequences. -- The partisans of atheism are wont to call themselves freethinkers (esprit forts). Yet their doctrine is the very annihilation of intelligence, for the consistent atheist, not finding in his system the explanation of either his own existence or that of the sensible world, falls necessarily into the most complete scepticism; and this is the negation of all thought. Moreover, if God does not exist, there is no longer either good or evil, man may follow at will his most perverse inclinations, society is without foundation, and the law of might alone prevails. History, besides, bears witness that all the epochs of atheism have been epochs of intellectual debasement, of moral corruption, and of great social upheavals. As for the agnostic who says, "God may or may not exist, I cannot know His existence with certainty," his position is shown to be untenable by the first, or metaphysical, argument for the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. The objection that any attributes of God that we may learn from the consideration of creatures are too imperfect to be possessed by Him, only serves to bring out in stronger relief the excellence of His perfections and personality. Moreover, the Christian theist is content to know of many of God's perfections that they are, without attempting to fathom them. As to the manner in which we rise from creatures to a knowledge of God, see pp. 104, 105.
ART. III. -- UNITY OF GOD.
9. The unity of God is clearly inferred from the very notion of God. -- The unity of God may be shown by three principal arguments. 1. God being a pure act{1} His individuality is identical with His nature; but individuality is intrinsically incommunicable; therefore it is impossible that there be several gods. 2. God has all perfection; but if there were many gods, there would necessarily be some difference among them, and one would be deprived of what another would possess; but he who would be wanting in something would not have all perfection, and therefore would not be God. 3. All creatures are ordained for one another. As they differ one from another, they would not conspire to effect unity of order, if they were not governed by a being at least morally one: therefore the first Being who directs all to one and the same end must be absolutely one.
ART. IV. -- DUALISM.
10. Dualism is a useless hypothesis; it is absurd in itself, and it does not explain the fact for which it was assumed. -- The unity of God is a truth so evident that no philosopher dares to-day call it in question; it has been denied only in ancient times by polytheists and dualists, or Manichees.{2} Polytheism is so gross an error that it is superfluous to refute it. Dualism consists in admitting two principles, one good, the other evil, and is equally absurd. Yet it has led many minds astray, at different times, especially at the beginning of the Christian era and during the middle ages. But considered as a mere hypothesis, this system is destitute of all the characters that an hypothesis should have to be accepted. For an hypothesis should be necessary; it should not be absurd; it should explain the fact for which it was assumed. Now, (1) the hypothesis of dualism is useless, for its partisans formed it only because they thought the existence of evil irreconcilable with the goodness of God; but it is easy to prove that the existence of evil is not repugnant to the idea of an infinitely good God. (2) This hypothesis is absurd, for evil inasmuch as it is a privation of good, is also a privation of being, since good and being are convertible; therefore absolute evil would be absolute nothingness. (3) The hypothesis of dualism, far from explaining, on the contrary, destroys the fact for which it was assumed; for the Manichees had recourse to a twofold principle to explain by one the existence of good, and by the other the existence of evil. But these two principles either possess equal power or they do not; in the latter case, the possessor of the less power would not be God; in the former, the two principles would destroy each other's work, and the result of their reciprocal action would be nothingness.
{1} See page 168.
{2} Mani or Manes (Babylon, third cent.) derived from the Persians the doctrine of two principles, and from the Gnostics that of the hatefulness of matter. His sect observed three seals that of the mouth, for his followers were forbidden to eat meat or eggs, to drink wine or milk; of the hands, for they were forbidden to kill any animal or destroy any plant; that of the bosom, for they were forbidden to marry.