Having now endeavored to define what truths are comprehended in Natural Theology, we proceed to a consideration of its scientific character. We cannot, with Lord Brougham, apply to it the term inductive, for we think that induction has reference to the general truths that are inferred from particular phenomena included under them, and not to truths of a different class from the specific facts which suggest them. We deem it important to establish the scientific character of Natural Theology, because the prevalent style of discussion in this department is too loose and declamatory. Many believe that the mind is so constituted as to receive the truths of this science, when they are suggested by the Bible, but never to have a power of discovering these truths without such a supernatural suggestion. The world is compared to an intricate lock, and the Scriptures are the only key which can open it, and disclose the religious doctrines which had been shut out from our view. When the lock has been thus opened, we may go through the previously impassable door. Natural Theology as such, then, is thought to be a mere series of conjectures. It is singular, that some infidels have admitted the validity of certain proofs of the divine existence, when the same proofs have been disowned by Christians; and in fact almost every objection which atheists have made against these proofs, has been sustained by some believers in the Bible. It is not wonderful, therefore, amid this confusion of opinions, that Natural Theology has been deemed incapable of scientific arrangement and logical proof. Its reputation has been made still lower by the fanciful hypothesis, that all its pretended truths have been borrowed from original revelations, and not inferred from the phenomena of the inner and outer world; by the groundless remark also, that the best of the Pagan reasoners have merely arrived at certain ingenious guesses, at a bare wish that the propositions of Natural Theology may be found at last to be true, "rem gratissimam promittentes magis quam probantes." It were well if merely atheists had contended against the scientific character of Natural Theology, but so many Christians have united with them, some contesting the validity of certain parts of the science, others opposing all its parts, that the subject has become one of no ordinary moment. Its importance is yearly increasing. It is becoming more and more fashionable to say with Cousin, that the Christian religion is idealistic, and takes its grounds in the mind and not in the senses, and therefore neg Seneca, Epist. 102. 1846.] Its Scientific Character. 257 lects nature, or regards it under an ideal point of view, and rises to God in the depths of the soul, through reason and the Word, employing chiefly the à priori argument which is eminently the Christian one." It is also esteemed an accomplishment to be able to say, that 'the existence of God is a necessary conviction, a necessary belief in the analysis of the mind,' and therefore dispenses with logical deduction. As some, therefore, deny all the claims of Natural Theology to be considered a science, and others deny the scientific character of the whole argument à posteriori, and a third class deny the validity of that portion of the à posteriori argument which is derived from the works of external nature, we deem it important to show, that all these denials are without a proper foundation, and that Natural Theology, comprising the facts of the material and the mental world, is as regular and well established a science as chemistry or astronomy. A science has been defined to be a system of ultimate truths which, in conformity with the fundamental laws of belief, are proved by subordinate facts. It is not a mere aggregate of phenomena, but the phenomena must be classified under general principles. It is not a mere collection of principles, but a system of truths which are proved to be such by particular phenomena, and which are dependent upon, as well as ulterior to, those phenomena. The ultimate truths thus attested by subordinate facts, and inviting the application of certain fundamental laws of behef, constitute, according to the preceding definition, a regular science. Now, in order to show that Natural Theology is truly scientific in its nature, let us take some one of its departments, and attempt to develop its philosophical character. For the sake of mere convenience, let us analyze that department which includes the existence and attributes of God. The being, the natural and moral perfections of the Deity, constitute the ultimate truths in this department of the science. They are proved by facts like the following; The existence of matter and finite mind; the changes taking place in them; the adaptations which they exhibit of means to ends; their contrived fitnesses to promote the happiness and the holiness of intelligent beings; the natural and universal tendency of the mind to believe in a Deity, whose "eye is in every place beholding the evil and the good," and who is disposed to reward the one and punish the other. These • Cousin's Elements of Psychology, p. 337. Ibid, note, p. 338. and similar facts are applied to the support of the ultimate truths according to numerous principles of belief, some of which are instantaneously recognized as axioms; others, requiring a longer time for consideration, are at last adopted as incontrovertible; and others are firmly believed in the absence of all proof opposed to them. Among these principles are the following: Every existence has an internal or an external cause; the cause must be adequate to produce the effect, must be superior to the effect, must be present at the production of the effect; every contrivance has an intelligent contriver, a personal author; unity of design, shows a unity in the cause; the tendencies of the effect prove the moral character of the cause; those which lead to the happiness and holiness of the universe prove the moral goodness of their author; those which legitimately lead to the misery, and encourage the persevering sinfulness of the universe, prove the malevolence of their author; what the constitution of the mind obliges us to believe, is true; the propositions which have been held by all men in all ages are presumed to be correct, unless their contrary can be proved. These are some of the principles of belief, which are adopted more or less readily; and in the application of which, the above named facts evince the ultimate truths which constitute a single department of Natural Theology. Its four collateral departments contain a like system of axioms and laws of belief; of particular phenomena, and ulterior general principles. They constitute therefore, a complete science. But we are bound to consider the various objections which different writers have urged against the scientific character of Natural Theology. Some of these objections, emanating from opposite schools in philosophy, conflict with each other, but they all conspire against the principle which we are endeavoring to establish. First, it is said that the truths of this pretended science, are not cognizable either by sensation or consciousness, and can therefore be no more than plausible conjectures. But the ex The argument for the existence of God from the universal assent of man, has been more highly prized by some heathen writers than by many Christian theologians. The latter have often denied the fact of such an assent, but Aristotle says, Πάντες άνθρωποι περὶ θεῶν ἔχουσιν ὑπόληψιν.—De coelo 1, 3. Cicero says, Solus Epicurus vidit, primum esse Deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa natura. Quae est enim gens aut quod genus hominum, quod non habeat, sine doctrina, anticipationem quandam Deorum, quam appellat póλmv Epicurus, i. e. anteceptam animo rei quandam informationem, sine qua non intelligi quidquam, nec quaeri, nec disputari potest. De natura Deorum. I. 16. See also Tusc. Quaest. I, 3, and Seneca Epist. 117. 1846.] The Facts of the Science. 259 istence of a material substratum, of a mental essence, is not an object either of sensation or consciousness; yet from certain effects produced upon our sensorium we infer a proximate cause, i. e. the subject in which the material qualities inhere; and from certain effects produced within the sphere of our consciousness, we infer a proximate cause, i. e. the subject to which the mental qualities belong; and in both of these cases the subject is beyond the scope of our external or internal senses. On the same principle and in the same way, do we infer an ultimate producer of the same phenomena which we had already ascribed to a proximate efficiency; and there are no more objections to this inference in favor of a first cause, than previously existed to our inferences, in favor of what may be termed the second causes, the material substratum and the mental essence. It were easy to prove by a process of reductio ad absurdum, that we have no knowledge of any efficiency in nature, if we have none of the Efficient Cause of nature. Secondly, it is said that our ideas of the objects with which Natural Theology is conversant, are too obscure to be classed among the perceptions of scientific truth. But in every science we are compelled to believe in many objects, which we can describe with no more clearness, than we can explain the objects forming the basis of Natural Theology. From certain sensations of the optic nerve we infer the existence of light as a cause of them; but our ideas of light regarded distinctly from the visual sensations are, to say the least, as obscure as our ideas of a Creator; and if our knowledge of him be too indefinite to be called science, so likewise is our knowledge of light, and, on the same principle, of heat, of magnetism, of electricity, and indeed of all the agencies which are developed in Natural Science. Even our ideas of the atmospheric air, considered apart from the sensations which compel us to believe in its existence, are, to say the least, as evanescent as are our notions of the Spirit who is made known to us by Natural Theology. If, therefore, our investigations concerning this Spirit be not scientific, there is and can be no complete science. The two preceding objections have reference to the ultimate truths of Natural Theology. The two following, have reference to the facts by which these truths are established. It is said, thirdly, that some of the most important facts cannot be ascertained by the unaided reason. For example, in order to prove the divine goodness and wisdom, we must prove not only an intelligence, but an intelligent adaptation of means to ends. Now the great object of the creation cannot be learned, it is said, from the creation itself; and therefore, as the end is unknown, we cannot see a skilful adaptation of means to it. But we reply, first, that even the physical world alone displays innumerable fitnesses of means to useful ends; and from its wonderful adaptations we have philosophical reasons for inferring, that its author possesses such a degree of wisdom and goodness as surpasses our powers of comprehension. We reply, secondly, that the relations of the physical to the moral world, and the whole structure of the moral system, teach us the great design of the created universe, the tendencies of all things to promote the welfare of moral beings in this world, and more especially in the world to come. These tendencies are the proof of goodness and wisdom in their author. The existence of them has been already indicated in our attempts to show, that we are immortal beings, and subjects of a righteous moral government. No reader of Butler's Analogy and Sermons, can doubt that these tendencies are discoverable from nature. The fourth objection against the scientific character of Natural Theology is, that the facts on which it is founded do not belong to one distinct science, but are portions of natural, mental and moral philosophy. But this objection concedes one part of the very truth which it opposes. It implies that the facts of Natural Theology have a scientific character. This cannot be denied. The phenomena of the material world, the laws and operations of mind, the moral judgments and instincts are clearly ascertained in their respective sciences, and these form the premises for certain new deductions which constitute Natural Theol Thus is Natural Theology a more comprehensive science than any other. It includes all others, and superadds to them a new class of truths. It refers all other sciences to Him, who made the objects with which all are conversant. It draws one inference from them all, in favor of their author. It adds one step to every deductive process; this additional step is a scientific one; the antecedent process was scientific; the whole, then, is scientific. The present objection, therefore, instead of proving that Natural Theology is not a real science, proves only that it is the queen of all the sciences except the revealed; that it is, with this exception, the true scientia scientiarum. All the merely human sciences are imperfect without this. They all tend to this, were originally designed for its illustration, and are obvious |