167 
shown that the former is as capable of demonstration as the 
latter, — then it necessarily follows that if we are justified in 
calling the man a fool who denies the latter, we are also 
justified in calling him a fool who says there is no God, and in 
refusing to answer him according to his folly. 
2. Before proceeding further it may be as well to notice an 
objection urged by Dr; M‘Cosh, who says, “ When ingenious 
men make the inference demonstrative, it holds out incitements 
to other ingenious men to detect weaknesses and breaks in the 
links of the chain.” This is doubtless true, but it applies to 
all forms of argument, and the only way to foil these ingenious 
opponents is to make the chain so carefully that there shall 
not be any links either broken or weak. He again writes, “ We 
see how man is responsible for his belief in God. Were the 
argument altogether apodictic there would be no possibility of 
doubt, and therefore no room for the consent or dissent of the 
will. But the argument being moral, and not demonstrative, 
there is room for the exercise of an evil heart in rejecting it, 
and therefore of a candid spirit in falling in cheerfully with 
it.” The fact, however, that the argument is capable of demon- 
stration does not cancel man’s responsibility regarding it. The 
evil heart cannot indeed refuse the inference if it has followed 
honestly the chain of reasoning ; in this case, indeed, the will 
would be powerless ; but the will may be very powerful in with- 
drawing the attention from the argument altogether, or in so 
manipulating the evidence and deciding which shall be heard 
and which ignored, that fallacies may creep in and vitiate the 
whole. Were Euclid a theological or moral text-book, there 
would doubtless be found many denying its axioms and ridi- 
culing its conclusions, asserting that the general credence it 
obtained was the result of a false and pernicious education. 
The clearer the evidence for God’s existence, the greater is the 
guilt of those who deny it ; and that it is clear to demonstration 
must now be shown. 
3. By Deity, or God, is meant a Conscious Person, eternal 
and unproduced, capable of causing all changes that have 
happened, knowing all that is knowable, perfect in every 
attribute of His nature, and voluntarily conditioned by His 
own act in creating. The terms “infinite” and <( absolute” 
are avoided, because they are more celebrated for confusing 
than for aiding thought. By demonstration is meant induction 
based on intuition. Mathematical demonstration begins by 
assuming certain principles, such as “ Things which are equal 
to the same thing are equal to one another ; ” Sf if equals be 
added to equals, the wholes are equal ; ” “ two straight lines 
cannot enclose a space,” &c. These, and all such propositions, 
