of speculation themselves partly recognize this fact. When they are told of dynamic atoms, and solid ethers, and omnipresent forces, they are charmingly acquiescent; but when the theist, by the same method and from the same data, concludes to an omnipresent force which is also intelligent, then, instead of examining his logic, they think it sufficient to call his view an unheard-of absurdity, and an inversion of common sense. Custom explains many beliefs; it also explains many unbeliefs. The customary is clear, and clear because customary. Nevertheless, we insist upon the point. When it is seen that the complex and unintelligible theories of the atheist and materialist are not facts of observation, but only their way of explaining the facts, those theories will not be long in appearing in their innate irrationality.

STUDIES IN THEISM.

CHAPTER I.

KNOWLEDGE AND SKEPTICISM.

TWO questions, quite distinct, are often confused: 1. Is knowledge possible? 2. How is knowledge possible? The former question is plainly the more fundamental, and the skeptic's reply is, that knowledge is not possible. Thus, at the outset of our studies in Theistic Philosophy, "No thoroughfare" stares us in the face. Before going on we must have a word with the skeptic. Of course it cannot be our intention to prove that knowledge is possible; this would be the Don Quixotism of philosophy. Our plan is to examine the skeptic's objections, in order to see if there be any thing in them to shake the mind's trust in its own power to know. If the objections fail, knowledge will not be proved; but skepticism will appear groundless and irrational.

But this question is a purely philosophic one, and why discuss it in an essay on Theism? Skepticism of our cognitive faculties in general tells as much against one department of knowledge as against another, and universal skepticism is none. Because it doubts every thing, it, in effect, doubts nothing. Being impartially

distributed over all the faculties, it leaves their relative position and rank undisturbed, and decides nothing. The only significant skepticism is that which discredits the higher faculties in the name of the lower; and brings discord into the mind. A skepticism which exalts the senses and the animal, and thus seeks to throw doubt upon the rational and moral nature, is the only dangerous one. The theist is quite content to let the skeptic vapor as he will about the general uncertainty of knowledge, so long as it can be made out that reason, such as it is, supports theism. Reason may be very feeble, and the facts may be very imperfectly known, but if they unite in pointing to theism as the only sufficient explanation of the world, the theist is satisfied. Why, then, burden ourselves with difficulties which are common to every theory of knowledge, and thus run the risk of failing in our gratuitously-assumed task?

Theoretically, these objections are well taken; but, practically, another course is more promising. Philosophic skepticism is impotent, except in moral and religious discussion. Elsewhere daily contact with reality and the imperative needs of life make real skepticism practically impossible. Busy men turn their backs on it, and answer it by walking away. But it is both wonderful and instructive how the objections are brought out when discussion touches on moral or religious questions. Points, which in daily life would seem pedantic or foolish, are made with the emphasis of conviction and the zeal of a new discovery. After swallowing the camel, the gnat is carefully strained out; and, once in

awhile, even conscience is invoked against the impiety of ready belief. In an age of dogmatism religion is impossible, because we know too much. According to the dogmatist, there is nothing but matter and force in the universe, with no room for God or ghosts. In an age of skepticism religion is impossible, because we know too little. The reason is unimportant, if only the conclusion be reached. No matter what form the ravings of speculators may take, religion is sure to be beaten. No matter what the speech treats of, it is apt to end with "Carthage must be destroyed." Theism, then, has a practical interest in examining the skeptic's arguments, such as none of the sciences have. We further reply to the objections of the preceding paragraph, that our purpose is not so much to solve the general difficulties of knowledge, as to show that they are general. Volition cannot be argued with; but it is worth while to show a candid objector that the difficulties at which he hesitates, are no greater than others which he accepts. The lack of logical and philosophical training frequently results in the imagination that metaphysical difficulties are found only in Natural Theology. It is of service to such a one to show that these difficulties underlie all the sciences, and even logic itself. We reply finally to the objector, that it is not our purpose to give an exhaustive theory of knowledge, but only to clear up the subject a little by some criticisms and definitions. The chief difficulty of the question lies in the fog which envelopes it.

The prevailing agnosticism is not speculative, but practical. It does not arise from any psychological

study, but solely from the necessity of avoiding certain disagreeable conclusions. It prevails especially in scientific quarters. Physics is pushed up to the verge of atheism and materialism, and then a halt is called. To save trouble, agnosticism is adopted as a compromise. Hence the dualism of agnostic treatises. They give us atheism and materialism for subject and predicate, but omit the copula. The evilly-inclined reader supplies the omission. Along with the atheism go divers expressions of awe at the all-pervading wonder, and the mystery of the molecule. These men are not to be blamed. Their inconsistency is based on the need they feel for supplying some foundation for morals and religion. One must admire the motive, even in criticising the outcome. But the dualism is apparent, and its worthlessness is equally plain. Moreover, their agnosticism appears only upon occasion. It is when dealing with an opponent's views that it becomes prominent. We have made a careful study of the works of leading agnostics, and have never detected the slightest indication of conscious ignorance. On the contrary, the zeal of conviction and the dogmatism of infallibility, are every-where apparent. They publish long theories of things, and appear to have great confidence in them, although things are declared unknowable. They invest the fundamental reality with various attributes, after declaring any attribution unallowable. This fact makes the study of their works vanity and vexation of spirit. The results of compromise, their works have all the hodge-podge character of compromises in general. We must not charge the writers with the unparalleled inso