,transcriber's ,notes3 ,many printing   
errors1 particularly in the ,french and 
,greek1 have been corrected4 ,the       
inconsistent hyphenation of the word    
stand-point has been retained4 ,greek   
has been transliterated and placed      
inside 4                   ,,the ,,basis
 ,,of ,,early ,,christian ,,theism      
,,by                  ,,lawrence        
,,thomas ,,cole1 ,a4 ,m41 ,s4 ,t4 ,b41  
,post-graduate ,scholar of the ,church  
,university ,board of ,regents          
,,submitted ,,in ,,partial ,,fulfilment 
,,of ,,the ,,requirements               
,,for ,,the ,,degree ,,of ,,doctor ,,of 
,,philosophy ,,in ,,the                 
,,faculty ,,of ,,philosophy             
,,columbia ,,university                 
,,new ,,york                            
,may1 #ahih     ,,contents     ,,chapter
 ,i3   ,introduction                    
#i    ,,chapter ,,ii3  ,greek and ,roman
 ,theistic ,arguments                   
#ad    ,,chapter ,,iii3 ,the ,patristic 
,point of ,view                         

#bf    ,,chapter ,,iv3  ,patristic ,use 
of the ,theistic ,arguments             
#ch    ,,chapter ,v3   ,eclectic ,theism
                                        
#ee        ,les preuves de ,dieu        
mtaphysiques sont si loignes du         
raisonnement des hommes1 et si          
impliques1 qu'elles frappent peu2       
et quand cela serviroit  quelques-uns1  
ce ne seroit que pendant      l'instant 
qu'ils voient cette dmonstration2 mais1 
une heure aprs1      ils craignent de   
s'tre tromps4 ,quod curiositate         
cognoverint1      superbi amiserunt4    
--,penses de ,pascal1 ,,ii1 xv4 #b4     
,,chapter ,i  ,,introduction   ,a       
question which every author ought to ask
 of himself before he sends forth his   
work1 and one which must occur to every 
thoughtful reader1 is the inquiry1 ,cui 
bono8--what justification has one for   
treating the subject at all1 and why in 
the particular way which he has chosen8 
,to the pertinency of this question to  
the present treatise the author has been

 deeply sensible1 and therefore cannot  
forbear a few prefatory words of        
explanation of his object and method4   
,in accounts of the theistic argument1  
as in the history of philosophy in      
general1 it has been customary to pass  
over a space of well-nigh ten centuries 
of the ,christian era in silence1 or    
with such scanty and unsympathetic      
notice as to make silence the better    
alternative4 ,largely through the       
influence of such treatment as this1 we 
moderns have almost forgotten at times  
that during this period there lived men 
inferior to none in history in          
endowments of mind and influence on     
succeeding generations1 and that there  
then took place some of the most        
significant and far-reaching            
intellectual conflicts in the history of
 thought4 ,with ,cicero1 says ,professor
 ,stirling1 we reached in our course a  
most important and critical             
halting-place4444 ,we have still 444 to 
wait those thousand years yet before    

,anselm shall arrive with what is to be 
named the new proof1 the proof          
ontological1 and during the entire      
interval it is the ,fathers of the      
,church and their immediate followers   
who1 in repetition of the old1 or       
suggestion of the new1 connect thinker  
with thinker1 philosopher with          
philosopher1 pagan with ,christian4#a   
,to attempt to account for even one of  
the details of thought during this      
period cannot be without its advantages4
  ,for ,christianity gave a new and     
unique turn to thought4 ,it brought with
 it a new set of data1 and a new        
subject-matter4 ,the ,christian doctrine
 of ,god1 the distinctions in the       
,trinity1 the great doctrines centering 
around the person of ,jesus ,christ1    
though1 perhaps1 faintly foreshadowed in
 some of the earlier speculations1 are1 
in their fulness and completeness1 first
 given to the world by the ,founder of  
,christianity4 ,the claims made for     
these doctrines1 too1 gave them a unique

 character4 ,in contrast with the       
half-hearted1 faltering conclusions of  
the prevalent philosophical schools1    
,christianity asserted that its         
teachings were absolute truth2 it       
claimed to be nothing less than a       
revelation from the ,creator of the     
world4 ,it will be readily seen that the
 introduction of such a system as this  
into the ,greek world would be attended 
with important results1 not only in its 
effects upon the intellectual life of   
the times1 but also in the influence of 
the current philosophical conceptions on
 the statement of its doctrine4 ,the    
significance of this early period lies  
in the fact that1 in the positive1      
definite system of ,christianity1       
systematic thought1 which was fast      
becoming disorganized and sceptical1    
found a center about which it might     
rally and focus itself1 and the         
scattered fragments of philosophy were  
all collected together1 by either       
friends or foes1 about the new religion4

 ,the new point of view and the new     
relations would be most significant1    
too1 in that department of thought with 
which the contact of this new central   
system had most to do1 and thus the     
treatment of the theistic problem       
exhibits in a special degree the        
alteration in the standpoint and method 
of philosophy4 ,it threw into bold      
relief the old basis of belief in the   
divine1 and aroused a comparison and    
discussion of the validity of the       
various arguments hitherto used by      
speculative thought1 and set them over  
in sharp contrast to the claims of the  
new revelation4 ,in the early period    
when this contrast was most clearly     
felt1 and time had not yet permitted a  
complete fusion and blending of the two 
points of view1 we find a simplicity of 
situation which will aid analysis and   
facilitate the study of the relation of 
the old arguments for the existence of a
 ,god to the ,christian doctrine1 and   
which will help in determining the      

elements due to each and in interpreting
 the reasons for the direction of       
thought on this subject1 which          
characterized the whole of the ,medival 
period4  ,in the representations of     
early ,christian thought1 however1 we   
find great differences in the emphasis  
laid upon the speculative side of the   
theistic problem4 ,christian philosophy 
is no exception to the rule that the    
thought of the race develops through the
 needs1 temperaments and tendencies with
 which it comes into contact1 and       
unfolds itself naturally in response to 
internal or external stimuli--the       
doubts1 intellectual needs and growing  
consciousness and experience of the     
believer1 and the cavils1 objections and
 attacks of his opponent4 ,the first    
,christian teachers had to meet simple  
problems1 and the mission of the        
,apostolic and sub-,apostolic ,church   
was to the people4 ,its first task1     
determined by the conditions in which   
the ,christians found themselves1 as    

well as by the command of their ,master1
 was to convert the ,jews1 who1 by their
 long training as a peculiar people1    
were especially adapted for receiving   
this new revelation1 based1 as it was1  
on that monotheistic idea to the        
preservation of which their national    
life had been devoted4 ,upon them the   
primitive ,christians1 most of whom1    
like ,st4 ,paul1 were ,hebrews of the   
,hebrews1 brought to bear the instrument
 most adapted to their conversion1      
namely1 the argument deduced from the   
sacred ,scriptures of their race4  ,and 
when the ,church finally turned towards 
the ,gentile world1 it was still the    
popular religion1 the religion of the   
poets1 rather than the philosophy of the
 schools1 with which its apologists     
first came into contact1 and it is very 
evident from such writings as the       
recently recovered ,apology of          
,aristides1 philosopher of ,athens1 and 
many other works extending over the     
whole ,ante-,nicene period1 that much of

 the energy of the early exponents of   
,christianity was directed towards the  
conversion of the populace who still    
adhered1 at least formally1 to the      
religion of their own poets4  ,the      
function of the primitive ,christians1  
so far as the content of their belief   
was concerned1 was to preserve and      
transmit to their successors an implicit
 faith4 ,the value of this faith they   
attempted to show chiefly by practical1 
ethical demonstration4 ,thus they       
preached chiefly by example1 and it is  
on the ground of life rather than that  
of thought that they made their plea to 
the ,gentiles4 ,in their struggle for   
existence1 threatened on every side by  
official persecution and popular fury1  
they had no opportunity for speculation 
on fundamentals--they pleaded merely to 
be allowed to live the life to which    
they were pledged4 ,with the ,eastern   
training1 which most of them had had1 so
 foreign to the ideals of ,greek        
philosophy1 and so tenacious of the idea

 of ,god1 and with the person of ,christ
 so near to them as to blind their eyes 
to the possibility of any other standard
 of truth than ,his words1 they         
naturally afford us no material for the 
question under discussion4  ,thus we    
must wait for the rise of ,christian    
philosophy1 and take as our terminus a  
quo the middle of the second century1   
when first there appears that literature
 which bears evidence to the conversion 
of philosophers to the ,christian       
,church1 and affords us examples of     
their attempts to present the new       
doctrines to the schools which they had 
abandoned4  ,our terminus ad quem will  
be the ,council of ,nicea4 ,the reason  
for this is in part the demands of time 
and space1 and in part the fact that it 
will avoid needless and tedious         
repetition4 ,the use of the theistic    
argument for some time after the ,nicene
 period is fairly homogeneous1 and      
presents no important new               
considerations4 ,the apologetic work of 

the patristic writers was chiefly done  
in the ante-,nicene age2 after that     
discussion turned more upon questions   
within the scope of the ,christian      
,faith4 ,the function of the age of the 
,councils was the formulation and       
definition of ,christian dogma upon the 
admitted basis of the revelation of     
,jesus ,christ4  ,this inquiry1         
therefore1 will have to do with that    
interesting period when the doctrines of
 the ,christian ,church were finding    
their connection with and relation to   
the speculations of ,greek philosophy1  
and when the ,christian philosophers and
 apologists were determining the        
attitude which1 for many centuries1     
revealed religion assumed toward the    
demonstrations of natural theology4     
,,footnotes3  #a ,philosophy and        
,theology1 p4 #agf4     ,,chapter ,,ii  
,,greek ,,and ,,roman ,,theistic        
,,arguments   ,the first question that  
confronts us as we enter upon the       
discussion is the preliminary inquiry3  

,what had been done already in the way  
of theistic argument1 and in what       
condition did the ,christian ,church    
find this argument when it first began  
to develop a system of apologetics8 ,and
 from the conditions of ancient thought1
 or1 at least1 from what we know of it1 
this resolves itself into the question3 
,how far had the ,greek philosophers    
advanced by means of speculative thought
 toward a conscious theism1 and by what 
means did the various individuals and   
schools among them seek to prove the    
existence of the ,divine8 ,the answer to
 this inquiry will involve a brief      
examination of the contributions of the 
pre-,socratic philosophers 7especially  
,anaxagoras71 ,socrates1 ,plato1        
,aristotle1 the ,stoics1 the            
,epicureans1 ,cicero1 and the           
,hellenizing ,jews of ,alexandria4  ,the
 thought of ,greece before the time of  
,socrates1 from the very nature of its  
problem1 and the material at its        
disposal1 yields us but little that can1

 without doing violence to the facts1 be
 construed as bearing on the theistic   
argument4 ,the search of these early    
philosophers was1 indeed1 for an ,arch1 
but their interest in the inquiry1 as a 
perusal of the extant fragments of their
 writings will prove1 was pre-eminently 
cosmological4 ,they strove to discover  
the eternal ground of all things1 but it
 was a principle to account for the     
phenomena of physical nature that they  
sought1 and they had not attained to a  
realization of even a rude form of the  
theistic problem4 ,all they sought for  
was a primary substance which should    
satisfy the needs of a rudimentary      
physical science1 which would enable    
them to co-ordinate the scanty data     
which they had accumulated from their   
contact with the world in which they    
lived1 and to whose secrets they seem at
 times1 in spite of their limited       
knowledge1 to have come very close4 ,and
 even granting that the problem involved
 in their search for the ,arch was at   

bottom identical with that of theism1   
they attempt to give no proof or        
argument for their conclusions with     
regard to it4 ,they are as yet merely   
seers1 who report the vision that comes 
to them as they gaze upon the stress and
 strain and ever-changing spectacle of  
earth's phenomena4 ,even the teleology  
of ,anaxagoras 7often mentioned as the  
germ of the theistic argument7 gives us 
nothing more than a poet's dream1       
expressed1 as ,diogenes ,laertius       
informs us1 in a lofty and agreeable    
style4#b ,nous1 ,anaxagoras tells us1 is
 infinite and self-ruled1 and is mixed  
with nothing1 but is alone1 itself by   
itself4444 ,it has all knowledge about  
everything1 and the greatest strength2  
and ,nous has power over all things1    
both greater and smaller1 that have     
life4 ,and ,nous had power over the     
whole revolution1 so that it began to   
revolve in the beginning4444 ,and ,nous 
set in order all things that were to be 
and that were1 and all things that are  

not now1 and that are1 and this         
revolution in which now revolve the     
stars and the sun and the moon and the  
air and the ther that are separated     
off4#c ,this1 however1 amounts to no    
argument1 and it is extremely doubtful  
whether ,anaxagoras ever meant anything 
more by his ,nous than ,empedocles did  
by his ,love and ,strife1 of which it   
was the historical successor1 and we may
 safely1 ,i think1 endorse the judgment 
of ,aristotle when he says that         
,anaxagoras1 also1 employs mind as a    
machine 7i4e41 as the ,laurentian ,,ms4 
indicates1 as a theatrical deus ex      
machina7 for the production of the      
cosmos2 and when he finds himself in a  
perplexity as to the cause of its being 
necessarily so1 he then drags it in by  
force to his assistance2 but1 in the    
other instances1 he assigns as a cause  
of the things that are being produced1  
everything else in preference to mind   
7,nous74#d ,this criticism will1 ,i am  
confident1 apply fully as well to any   

apparent theism in the other            
pre-,socratic writers1#e so that we     
shall be justified in assigning to them 
as their part in the development of the 
theistic argument1 the mere undefined   
feeling and growing conviction of a     
permanent behind the changing1 a one    
behind the many4  ,we find the natural  
deep and practical piety of ,socrates   
reinforcing itself with a very full and 
complete statement of a teleological    
argument1 based upon final cause1 or    
adaptation of means to ends4 ,it is in  
the ,memorabilia#f that we get the clear
 statement of this1 and1 therefore1 it  
is a ,socratic teaching which can1      
fortunately1 be definitely distinguished
 from the ,platonic treatment of the    
subject4 ,but which1 he asks1 seemed to 
you most worthy of admiration1          
,aristodemus--the artist who forms      
images void of motion and intelligence1 
or one who has the skill to produce     
animals that are endued not only with   
activity1 but understanding8 ,then as   

,aristodemus answers1 ,the latter1      
,socrates proceeds to a detailed        
description of the adaptations of the   
eye1 ear1 teeth1 mouth and nose to their
 several uses1 and concludes with the   
question3 ,and canst thou still doubt1  
,aristodemus1 whether a disposition of  
parts like this should be a work of     
chance1 or of wisdom and contrivance8   
,he also argues in like manner from the 
existence of intelligence in man1 the   
soul1 and the general adaptability of   
man's powers and conditions to the      
furthering of his life4 ,this argument  
to design has appropriately been called 
peculiarly the ,socratic proof1#g and to
 his treatment of it1 so in keeping with
 the practical1 sturdy common-sense of  
the man1 nothing essential or important1
 except in multiplication of            
applications and details1 has been added
 since his time4 ,in the opinion of the 
writer1 however1 ,socrates1 so far as   
one can judge from his recorded         
utterances1 developed merely the form of

 the ,argument to ,design1 but it cannot
 be positively asserted that he used it 
as a theistic argument4 ,in the         
,memorabilia it is always the gods to   
which the argument leads1 and the       
worship of them that he urges4 ,he may  
have had a more theistic conception1 but
 the context warrants no further meaning
 of theos than the generic one of an    
object of worship--in this case the     
national gods4 ,in the ,apology ho theos
 is used almost invariably of the local 
divinity of the oracle at ,delphi1 and  
of the daemon which1 at the instigation 
of the ,delphian divinity1 as he was    
convinced1 guided his actions4 ,the     
present writer is strongly of the       
opinion that much violence has been done
 the words of ,socrates by translators  
and interpreters1 and that this fact    
will account for much of the alleged    
theistic teaching which is1 without     
warrant1 ascribed to the ,athenian sage4
  ,the contribution of ,plato to the    
theistic argument was1                  

characteristically1 the form of the     
,ontological proof which has been called
 ,idealogical4 ,this process is a very  
natural development for ,plato's        
,dialectic4#h ,once divide the universe1
 as he did1 into the two classes of     
permanent existence and transient       
phenomena1 and identify the former with 
the ideas 7which are nothing else than  
universals1 each of which expresses the 
essence of many phenomena71 and it is a 
very easy process to conceive of these  
ideas themselves being united in another
 more inclusive idea1 and so1 by a      
process of generalization1 to reach at  
length the ,idea of ,ideas--the absolute
 ,idea1 in which lies the essence of all
 in the universe4 ,thus from any one    
fact of beauty1 harmony1 etc41 the human
 mind may rise to the notion of a common
 quality in all objects of beauty1 etc43
 from a single beautiful body to two1   
from two to all others2 from beautiful  
bodies to beautiful sentiments1 from    
beautiful sentiments to beautiful       

thoughts1 until1 from thought to        
thought1 we arrive at the highest       
thought1 which has no other object than 
the perfect1 absolute1 ,divine          
,beauty4#i ,the ideas1 too1 and         
especially the ,good or absolute ,idea1 
have in them a teleological element1    
since the ,idea not only states as what1
 but also for what a thing exists4#aj   
,the absolute ,idea is not only the     
first principle of the universe1 but    
also its final purpose1 and thus we have
 indicated in various places a          
teleological argument4 ,traces of other 
forms of the theistic argument have been
 detected in ,plato's writings1 but none
 of them are at all explicitly          
developed1 and one cannot but feel that 
some writers on the subject have claimed
 altogether too much for ,plato's       
theology4#aa ,the poetical and          
allegorical form into which he so       
constantly throws his discussion makes  
it extremely difficult to determine his 
exact position1 especially on such a    

subject as his theology1 in which he is 
constantly adapting his metaphysical    
doctrines to the prevailing polytheistic
 religious ideas2 and at the same time  
this method of expression gives a good  
opportunity for the collection of       
isolated quotations which may support   
almost any theory4  ,the religious      
character of ,plato's philosophy is1 as 
,zeller says1 to be found much more on  
the moral than on the scientific side1  
and hence he was content to leave the   
more exact formulation of such arguments
 as these to his successors4 ,as to the 
results to which this method led him1   
the statement of ,zeller1 in view of the
 many conflicting opinions1 seems       
satisfactory3 ,in everything that he    
states concerning the ,divinity the     
leading point of view is the idea of the
 ,good1 the highest metaphysical and    
ethical perfection4 ,as this highest    
,idea stands over all ideas as the cause
 of all being and knowing1 so over all  
gods1 alike hard to find and to         

describe1 stands the one1 eternal1      
invisible god1 the ,framer and ,father  
of all things4#ab ,of the personality of
 ,god ,plato had no conception1#ac and  
it would be a very difficult undertaking
 to prove from his extant works that he 
was1 in any real sense of the word1 a   
theist4  ,of the three divisions of the 
speculative sciences--physical1         
mathematical and theological--,aristotle
 makes the last the most excellent1#ad  
for it is conversant about that one     
amongst entities which is more entitled 
to respect than the rest4#ae ,it is to  
the discussion of this subject in ,book 
,,xi4 that the greater part of the      
,metaphysics leads up4 ,he has          
established in the previous portions of 
the work the two substances which he    
calls natural or physical--namely1      
matter and form--and now he proceeds to 
justify the hints he has given of a     
third substance which is immovable4#af  
,it has been customary to divide this   
discussion of ,aristotle into several   

formal theistic arguments1#ag but in the
 opinion of the writer the text of the  
,metaphysics does not lend itself       
readily to any such cut and dried       
arrangement of its argument4 ,aristotle 
does1 indeed1 to avoid the absurdity of 
an endless regress1 argue from the      
kinoumena and the kinounta of the       
physical ,world to a prton kinoun which 
is a pure energeia1 akinton1 aneu hyls1 
and hence foreign to all the passivity  
and contingency of matter2#ah concludes 
from motion in the world that there must
 be a ,first ,mover2#ai and asserts the 
actuality of the eternal as opposed to  
potentiality2 but these arguments are so
 blended together1 and take each one so 
much from the others1 that ,i cannot be 
convinced that ,aristotle had ever      
clearly differentiated them4  ,but it is
 clear enough that the crown of         
,aristotle's whole system is this prime 
mover1 unmoved and apart from matter1   
and that this conception1 up to which   
his thought leads from every side1 as   

the necessary implication from the      
motion everywhere seen in the world1 is 
his chief contribution to the argument  
for the existence of the ,divine4       
,aristotle's chief interest lay in the  
cosmological problem1 and his form of   
proof and the result which he reached by
 it were moulded by this fact4 ,his     
argument did not lead him to a ,creator 
of the world1 for the universe1 no less 
than the prime mover1 was eternal1 and  
the latter is nothing more than a       
principle of reason immanent in the     
world--pervading it1 not distinguished  
from it--and the author of motion only  
in a passive way1 after all1 as a sort  
of magnetic object of desire4#bj ,in    
other places ,aristotle makes passing   
references to different forms of the    
argument to prove the existence of the  
gods1#ba but it is evident that his own 
interest centered around this unmoved   
final cause1 and it is in his proof of  
its existence from cosmological         
considerations that his significance for

 us lies4  ,in the post-,aristotelian   
schools we have an entire change of the 
point of view1 and instead of a         
philosophy of nature1 such as occupied  
the attention of the pre-,socratic      
thinkers1 or a philosophy of mind1 such 
as ,socrates1 ,plato1 and to a large    
extent1 ,aristotle attempted to         
construct1 we find the interest of men  
in speculative questions centered in a  
philosophy of life1 of morals4          
,corresponding to this change in the    
point of view1 we may easily detect an  
alteration in the manner of dealing with
 the arguments for the existence of the 
gods4  ,there was1 in the first place1  
an increased emphasis laid upon this    
line of thought1 in common with         
religious subjects in general1 and the  
reasons for the belief in the existence 
of the gods 7for the ,greek schools     
never transcended polytheism--when they 
speak of theos they mean simply the     
abstract divinity of the many separate  
divinities7 seems1 so far as we may     

judge from the comparatively scanty     
remains that have come down to us1 to   
have been discussed at great length2    
critically and negatively by the        
,sceptics1 positively and apparently    
with full conviction by the ,stoics1 and
 with a curious mixture of both of these
 attitudes by the ,epicureans4 ,these   
latter1 if the reported doctrine of     
,epicurus himself be trustworthy1 denied
 the popular gods1 and1 in order to     
insure freedom1 rejected the ,stoic     
doctrine of providence2 but1 on the     
other hand1 asserted a belief in gods   
whose essential characteristics are     
immortality and perfect happiness 7to   
insure which they must care nothing for 
the world or for men71 and whose        
existence was held to be proven on the  
basis of the common consent of all men  
7,argumentum e ,consensu ,gentium74     
,this argument is the result of a       
natural idea or pre-notion1 which       
,epicurus called prolepsis2--that is1 an
 antecedent conception of the fact in   

the mind1 without which nothing can be  
understood1 inquired after1 or          
discoursed on4#bb  ,the ,stoics1 on the 
other hand1 with their strong conviction
 of providence working in the world1    
were rather inclined to deny the        
validity of this argument from common   
consent1 and rested their belief in the 
gods1 as ,cicero makes his ,stoic do in 
,de ,natura ,deorum1#bc on the evidence 
of design and purpose in the universe1  
but by this process succeeded only in   
proving to their own satisfaction that  
the world is divine--a fatalistic       
pantheism which roused the ire of the   
,epicurean and ,sceptic alike1 and which
 even ,cicero seemed hardly to be able  
to accept4  ,from this necessarily brief
 review of the development of the       
argument for the existence of a         
,divinity in ,greek and ,roman thought1 
it will be seen that1 at one time or    
another1 in a more or less fully        
developed form1 each one of the         
principal types of the theistic argument

 received the chief emphasis and had its
 method enunciated4 ,the pre-,socratic  
natural philosophers1 on the basis of   
the maxim as old as philosophy          
itself--,adynaton ginesthai ti ek mdenos
 prouparchontos--pointed to an ,arch--a 
real behind phenomena1 a permanent      
behind the change--and thus pointed to  
the so-called ,aetiological argument    
founded on the principle of causality4  
,socrates1 with his pre-eminently       
practical disposition and ethical point 
of view1 saw above all things intention 
in nature1 and so from the consideration
 of this choice and adaptation of means 
to their end1 and the resultant ,final  
,cause he constructs a very complete    
,teleological argument for the existence
 of some intelligence behind the visible
 world4 ,plato's ,ideas1 as we have     
seen1 determine the method by which he  
arrives at his abstract divinity1       
namely1 by the ,idealogical form of     
argument based upon a process of        
generalization4 ,aristotle1 struck by   

the phenomena of motion in the universe1
 lays most stress on the course of      
reasoning which would lead back to the  
,prime ,mover4 ,the ,epicureans1        
subordinating their theology to their   
ethical theory1 and unwilling to allow  
their deity to interfere with the world 
or with men's affairs1 developed and    
placed their dependence on the argument 
from common consent4 ,the ,stoics1      
laying great stress upon the order1     
proportion and harmony in the world1    
argued to mind as the reason for this   
condition of things4 ,but none of these 
philosophers1 in the opinion of the     
writer1 attained to a conception of ,god
 which could in any real or accepted    
sense of the word be called theistic1 or
 which would satisfy a mind accustomed  
to the idea of the ,christian doctrine  
of ,god4  ,for the ,greek writers never 
make any accurate distinction between ho
 theos1 hoi theoi1 to theion and ta     
theia4 ,they never conceive of their    
theos as anything more than a rather    

larger and more majestic member of the  
innumerable family of the divinities of 
which the poets had sung--more spiritual
 only in so far as it was more vague and
 indefinite1 a sort of mysterious1      
mythical being to which is sometimes    
attributed the same kind of personality 
possessed by the inferior gods1 and     
sometimes regarded as simply the        
abstract divinity which characterized   
all of the gods4 ,but that to which the 
arguments that we have been discussing  
generally lead is not even so near to   
the theistic conception as this modified
 polytheism1 for they usually conduct   
us1 as we have already indicated1 to    
nothing more than a 7sometimes7         
personified force of nature1 principle  
of order1 or abstract conception--not a 
,god4 ,take away the inaccurate and     
misleading terms by which the original  
,greek is rendered in most of the       
,english versions1 in which the         
enthusiasm of the student of comparative
 religions has taken the place of the   

careful and accurate translator1 and1   
aside from frequent apostrophes1 such as
 are continually addressed by the poets 
to the many gods of the popular         
religion1 the end of the arguments we   
have been considering will be found to  
be as depicted above4 ,in a word3 ,greek
 philosophy1 independent of ,semitic    
influences1 developed the form of the   
chief types of the theistic argument1   
but it failed utterly to deduce from    
them a theism1 being throughout in its  
theology either polytheistic or         
pantheistic4  ,while considering this   
branch of our subject it would be       
impossible to ignore another school of  
thought1 which1 while neither ,greek nor
 ,roman in its nationality1 yet derives 
so much of its philosophical stand-point
 from the former of these races as to be
 often classed under the same head4     
,this is the school of ,hellenizing     
,jews1 in which there is built up on the
 foundation of the traditional faith of 
the ,hebrew race1 to the truth and      

authority of which they always held1 a  
superstructure of philosophical         
speculation which follows closely the   
models afforded them by ,greek thought4 
,to effect a reconciliation between     
these two elements it was necessary for 
them to resort to the allegorical       
interpretation of the ancient inspired  
history of the race1 and hence to the   
,oriental mind that wished to engage in 
speculative thought it was naturally    
,platonic and ,pythagorean1 rather than 
,aristotelian1 methods that were most   
attractive4  ,the chief and probably the
 earliest developed example of this     
combination of ,oriental and ,occidental
 thought is found in the writings of    
,philo ,judaeus4#bd ,to him the powers  
of man seemed to be wholly unreliable   
and delusive1 and only the special grace
 of ,god enables one to perceive any    
truth--,autos theos arch kai pg technn  
kai epistmn anmologtai4 ,to approach    
,god one must flee from one's self--ei  
gar ztis theon exelthousa apo sauts     

anaztei4 ,neither reason nor any other  
function of the soul can conduct us to  
,god1 nor can we attain to a conception 
of ,him as the supreme cause of all by  
regarding the manifold perfections and  
powers of nature1 for such a process can
 give us only shadows4 ,it is only by a 
superior faculty which is a grace of    
,god that one can attain some idea of   
the divine1 but even by this means we   
arrive at only negative knowledge--we   
can know only what ,god is not4#be ,yet 
in spite of all this ,philo uses quite  
an elaborate teleological argument drawn
 from the order in the world4#bf ,this  
inconsistency1 which1 as ,erdmann       
remarks1#bg may be explained by the fact
 that ,philo makes ,god only the orderer
 of the world1 and1 furthermore1        
interposes an intermediate being1 the   
famous ,philonian ,logos1 we have       
thought it worth while to mention in    
this place1 as it forms a connecting    
link between the ,greek philosophers and
 the ,alexandrian ,fathers1 and         

foreshadows1 in some degree1 the        
direction in which their thought was to 
be led4  ,,footnotes3  #b ,d4 ,l41 ,i1  
#af2 ,,ii1 #f4  #c ,ritter and ,preller1
 #abc4 ,translated by ,burnet2 ,early   
,greek ,philosophy1 p4 #bhc1 #d4  #d    
,metaphysics1 ,i1 #d4  #e ,the one god1 
the greatest among gods and men of      
,xenophanes has led men to call him the 
first monotheist1 but an examination of 
the fragments attributed to him will1 ,i
 am sure1 confirm the verdict of ,burnet
 7ut supra1 p4 #abc7 that what          
,xenophanes proclaimed as the 'greatest 
god' was nothing more nor less than what
 we call the material world4  #f        
,xenophon3 ,memorabilia1 ,i1 #d4  #g    
,cocker3 ,christianity and ,greek       
,philosophy1 p4 #dia4  #h ,la           
dialectique et le systme des ides       
conduisaient directement ,platon  la    
dmonstration de l'existence de ,dieu2 et
 son ,dieu porte en quelque faon        
l'empreinte de cette origine1 puisqu'il 
est  la fois l'unit absolue et          

l'intelligence parfaite4 ,jules ,simon3 
,etudes sur la ,thodice de ,platon et   
d',aristote1 p4 #bi4  #i ,banquet1  #cd4
  #aj ,erdmann3 ,history of ,philosophy1
  #gg1 #d4  #aa ,e4g4 ,cocker3          
,christianity and ,greek ,philosophy1   
pp4 #cgg1 ff4  #ab ,zeller3 ,philosophie
 der ,griechen1 ,,ii1 i1 s4 #ibf4  #ac  
,plato never raised the question of the 
personality of ,god4 7,zeller2 ,greek   
,philosophy 7briefer edition7  #di47    
,sie 7die ,idee der ,ideen7 ist natrlich
 keine gottliche ,persnlichkeit4        
7,kahnis3 ,verhltniss der ,alten        
,philosophie zum ,christenthum1 p4 #ed47
  #ad ,metaphysics1 ,v1 #a4  #ae ,ibid43
 x1 #g4  #af ,metaphysics1 xi1 #f4  #ag 
,e4g41 ,schwegler3 ,history of          
,philosophy2 ,cocker2 ut supra1 p4 #dab1
 ff4  #ah xi1 #f4  #ai xi1 #g4  #bj     
,jules ,simon3 ,etudes sur la ,thodice  
de ,platon et d',aristote1 p4 #hh1 et   
al42 ,davidson3 ,theism and ,human      
,nature1 p4 #de4  #ba ,aristotle makes  
good use of the argument to design in a 

striking passage from a lost work quoted
 by ,cicero in ,de ,natura ,deorum1     
,,ii1 #cg1 and in ,physica auscultatio1 
,,ii1 #h1 says3 ,the appearance of ends 
and means is a proof of design4  #bb    
,cicero2 ,de ,natura ,deorum1 ,i1 #af1  
#ag1 and frequently4 ,see also ,seneca2 
,epist41 cxvii1 whose ,syncretism allows
 him to borrow from ,stoic and          
,epicurean alike4 ,see also ,zeller2    
,stoics1 ,epicureans and ,sceptics1 p4  
#dfe4  #bc ,e4g41 ,i1 #cf2 ,,ii1 #b1 #e1
 ff4  #bd ,vacherot3 ,histoire ,critique
 de l',ecole d',alexandrie1 ,vol4 ,i1 p4
 #adb4  #be ,ibid43 ,vol4 ,i1 p4 #adc1  
#add4  #bf ,see e4g41 the quotation in  
,stirling2 ,philosophy and ,theology1 p4
 #agc4  #bg ,history of ,philosophy1    
,vol4 ,i1  #aad1 #c4     ,,chapter ,,iii
  ,,the ,,patristic ,,point ,,of ,,view 
,the philosophy of the ,greeks during   
the first century of our era presents a 
great contrast to that of the age of    
,socrates1 ,plato and ,aristotle4 ,no   
longer do we find men engaged in the    

processes of positive1 constructive     
thought1 but we have presented to our   
view an age of retrospection1 of        
literary criticism1 and1 to a great     
extent1 of intellectual exhaustion4 ,men
 live amid the ruins of the systems     
constructed by their ancestors1 and each
 one attempts to form for himself1 out  
of the scattered fragments1 a           
combination which may serve him as a    
sufficiently coherent rule of thought1  
and1 especially1 of life4 ,stoicism1    
,epicureanism1 ,scepticism1 the         
,orientalizing ,hellenes1 and the       
,hellenizing ,orientals1 all by their   
restless1 nervous1 frequently erratic   
and aimless activity1 bear witness to   
the fact that the mind of man has had   
revealed to it its own limitations1 and 
is well on the way towards despair of   
ever arriving at truth4 ,the ,greek mind
 no longer exhibits that elasticity and 
spontaneity and enthusiasm in the search
 for truth1 or that confidence in its   
results1 which characterized the        

representatives of the best period of   
the thought of the race4 ,the political 
fortunes of ,greece do but typify the   
process which was going on in the ,greek
 mind itself1 and the period which we   
are considering is an age of            
intellectual as well as political       
decadence4 ,this is manifested by the   
further fact that the thought of the age
 was largely turned backward and dwelt  
in the past4 ,the day of original       
thought had passed by1 and men were now 
content to deal with ideas at second    
hand--to be commentators rather than    
creators4 ,this literary character which
 ,greek philosophy now first began to   
exhibit was often seen and protested    
against4 ,thus ,epictetus says3 ,if ,i  
study philosophy with a view only to its
 literature1 ,i am not a philosopher1   
but a littrateur2 the only difference is
 that ,i interpret ,chrysippus instead  
of ,homer4#bh ,but protest as they      
might1 the inexorable signs of old age  
crept over the nation as irresistibly as

 they do over the individual1 and1 like 
the venerable man1 preserved beyond his 
generation1 ,hellas lived largely in the
 memories of the past4  ,the influence  
of this condition of things is seen in  
the education of the times4 ,the ,greek 
world of this period1 as we know it1 was
 pre-eminently educated1 but in a       
special1 literary sense of the term4    
,the foundation of their education was  
,grammar--the ,belles ,lettres of modern
 times4 ,sextus ,empiricus says1 ,we are
 all given over to ,grammar from        
childhood1 and almost from our          
baby-clothes4#bi ,after ,grammar came   
,rhetoric1 the study of literature by   
the study of literary expression and    
quasi-forensic argument1#cj and         
,rhetoric was followed by ,philosophy1  
which1 however1 like the other branches 
of study1 so partook of the             
characteristics of the age that we find 
,marcus ,aurelius congratulating himself
 in this manner3 ,i owe it to ,rusticus 
that ,i found the idea of the need of   

moral reformation1 and that ,i was not  
diverted to literary ambition1 or to    
write treatises on philosophical        
subjects1 or to make rhetorical         
exhortations4#ca  ,this saying of the   
imperial ,stoic suggests another        
characteristic of the thought of the    
age--its ethical cast4 ,from the time of
 ,aristotle men had been content to     
have1 to a large extent1 the abstract   
problems of ,ontology1 ,epistemology1   
and the others1 and to lay emphasis on  
questions of life and manners4          
,stoicism1 ,epicureanism1 ,scepticism1  
and all the minor schools of the age1   
are pre-eminently ethical in their      
character4 ,to be sure it was ethical   
theory rather than practice with which  
they were busied1 but this fact makes   
the characteristic none the less        
important for the student of the history
 of philosophy4  ,this disorganized     
condition of thought which we have been 
attempting to depict has been well      
described by ,dr4 ,stirling3 ,the fall  

of the old world1 which was at once     
political1 religious and philosophical1 
was characterized by a universal        
atomism4 ,politically1 the individual1  
as an atom1 found himself alone1 without
 a country1 hardly with a home4         
,religiously1 the individual1 as an     
atom1 has lost his ,god2 he looks up    
into an empty heaven2 his heart is      
broken1 and he is hopeless1 helpless1   
hapless1 in despair4 ,philosophically1  
all is contradiction2 there is no longer
 any knowledge he can trust4 ,what the  
world is he knows not at all4 ,he knows 
not at all what he himself is4 ,of what 
he is here for1 of what it is all about1
 he is in the profoundest doubt1        
despondency and darkness4 ,politically1 
religiously and philosophically thus    
empty and alone1 it is only of himself  
that the individual can think2 it is    
only for himself that the individual    
must care4 ,there is not a single need  
left him now--he has not a single       
thought in his heart--but eu prattein1  

his own welfare4#cb  ,it was in the     
midst of this lump of ,eclecticism1     
,syncretism and ,scepticism that the    
leaven of ,christianity was deposited1  
and the result of the fusion which took 
place after the first antagonism had    
passed away1 makes this period a        
turning-point in the history of         
philosophy1 and of the utmost importance
 as regards its effects on subsequent   
thought4  ,and of this antagonism and   
subsequent reconciliation1 the early    
,christian ,apologists were concrete    
examples4 ,they had most of them1 before
 they became ,christians1 been adherents
 of one or the other of the different   
philosophical sects1 and several of them
 had tried all in turn4#cc ,they        
exemplified well the prevailing restless
 distrust of the results and methods of 
the older schools1 but in               
,christianity--the belief in a ,person1 
who was for them the ,way1 the ,truth   
and the ,life--they finally found the   
certainty for which they had so long    

sought in vain4 ,the effect of this     
process1 and of this result upon the    
attitude of the early ,christian        
philosophers1 could be none other than  
an increased distrust of the arguments  
for the existence of ,god1 and an       
inclination to ignore them completely4  
,these already suspected processes of   
reasoning by which the ,greeks had been 
able to attain only to an abstract      
principle1 or force1 or mechanical      
cause1 or arranger of the world1 must be
 of very small importance to these men1 
upon whose sight had burst all at once1 
in the height of their despair1 the     
vision of the ,christian doctrine of    
,god1 certified to by one whom they     
believed to be the veritable ,son of    
,god1 of one substance with the ,father1
 and whose testimony to the truth of any
 fact brought a certainty which was     
infinitely superior to that which could 
be attained by any rational argument on 
other grounds4 ,the transcendent        
authority of the teaching of ,jesus     

,christ for these men1 suddenly rescued 
by a belief in ,his claims from an      
absolute scepticism which was rapidly   
overflowing their minds1 needs to be    
thoroughly appreciated before one can   
understand the position which they      
assumed1 especially with reference to   
such a question as the one under        
discussion4  ,but though this basis of  
belief was sufficient for them1 yet1 as 
the primary mission of the ,christian   
was to go1 disciple all nations1 they   
were soon brought1 in their endeavors to
 fulfil this command1 into contact with 
those who not only denied the authority 
of their ,teacher1 but who were         
sceptical about the very fundamentals of
 religious belief4 ,for the sake of     
these1 then1 and occasionally for the   
further confirmation of the faith of    
believers1 and for purposes of          
illustration1 the patristic writers     
return again to the discussion of those 
elements of belief for which they       
themselves felt no need1 and hence we   

have in their works a rather frequent   
reference to the various forms of the   
theistic argument2 but one which is     
evidently only incidental to their main 
course of thought1 and which is brought 
in merely in accommodation to the needs 
of their readers4 ,the ordinary         
arguments to prove the existence of ,god
 were not at all an essential1 or even  
prominent1 feature of early ,christian  
,theology4 ,and because of this         
secondary and incidental position of    
these arguments1 they were never1 as we 
shall see1 given definite1 conventional 
shape in the patristic use of them1 nor 
were the various forms of the argument  
differentiated2 but they were used in   
what we may call a mixed form1 a        
combination of two or more different    
forms being put forth as one composite  
whole4  ,besides these general          
influences which shaped the patristic   
treatment of the theistic arguments1 we 
should notice certain fundamental and   
characteristic principles assumed by the

 ,fathers1 or by most of them1 which    
have their bearing on our subject4  ,in 
the first place it is held by most of   
the early ,christian authors1 and       
explicitly stated by many of them1 that 
the idea of the existence of ,god is    
innate in man as a natural opinion4 ,we 
have already noticed the doctrine of    
prolepsis advanced by ,epicurus1 and the
 somewhat similar position assumed by   
,philo1 and we are not surprised to find
 that this idea took a strong hold on   
the devout minds of the early           
,christians4 ,thus ,st4 ,justin ,martyr 
states that the appellation ',god' is   
not a name1 but an opinion              
7prosagoreuma7 planted in the nature of 
man of a thing that can hardly be       
explained1#cd and makes one of his      
discussions conclude that souls can     
perceive 7noein7 that ,god exists4#ce   
,st4 ,clement of ,alexandria goes even  
further and affirms that the ,father1   
then1 and ,maker of all things is       
apprehended by all things1 agreeably to 

all1 by innate power and without        
teaching4#cf ,tertullian thinks that the
 soul was before prophecy4 ,from the    
beginning the knowledge of ,god is the  
dowry 7dos7 of the soul1#cg and among   
the things known even by nature is the  
knowledge of our ,god which is possessed
 by all1#ch so that he could write a    
treatise1 ,de ,testimonio ,anim1 and    
exclaim1 ,o noble testimony of the soul 
by nature ,christian4#ci ,origen speaks 
of the uncorrupted idea of ,him which is
 implanted in the human mind1#dj and    
,st4 ,cyprian makes this knowledge so   
plain that this is the very height of   
sinfulness to refuse to acknowledge ,him
 whom you cannot but know4#da ,arnobius1
 too1 in a passage in which much        
allowance must be made for rhetorical   
fervor1 exclaims1 ,is there any human   
being who has not entered on the first  
day of his life with an idea of that    
,great ,head8 ,in whom has it not been  
implanted by nature1 on whom has it not 
been impressed1 aye1 stamped almost in  

his mother's womb even1 in whom is there
 not a native instinct1 that ,he is     
,king and ,lord1 the ruler of all things
 that be8 ,in fine1 if the dumb animals 
even could stammer forth their thoughts1
 if they were able to use our languages2
 nay1 if trees1 if the clods of the     
earth1 if stones dominated by vital     
perceptions were able to produce vocal  
sounds1 and to utter articulate speech1 
would they not in that case1 with nature
 as their guide and teacher1 in the     
faith of uncorrupted innocence1 both    
feel that there is a ,god1 and proclaim 
that ,he alone is ,lord of all8#db ,such
 language as this last example is1 of   
course1 the exclamation of the orator   
rather than the deliberate judgment of  
the philosopher1 but taken in connection
 with the other passages cited it will  
indicate how strong a hold this         
conviction had on the ,fathers1 and will
 anticipate1 to some extent1 what we    
shall have to say later as to the use of
 the ,argumentum e ,consensu ,gentium4  

,in direct connection and sharp contrast
 with this opinion of the ,fathers1     
there stands the seemingly contradictory
 statement1 as frequently encountered in
 their writings1 that the soul of itself
 cannot see ,god nor attain to true     
religion4 ,in the very same sentence in 
which ,st4 ,justin ,martyr asserts that 
souls can perceive 7noein7 that ,god    
exists1 he states that they do not see  
7idein7 ,god1#dc and insists in more    
than one place that neither by nature   
nor by human conception is it possible  
for men to know things so great and     
divine4#dd ,frequently the patristic    
writers have occasion to emphasize the  
inability of man to attain by any of his
 natural powers to religious truth1 and 
to point to the impotent longings and   
aspirations of ,greek philosophy as an  
example of this4 ,st4 ,clement of       
,alexandria1 for example1 asserts that  
the chiefs of philosophy only guessed at
 religious truth1#de and lays down the  
general principle that ,god1 then1 being

 not a subject for demonstration1 cannot
 be the object of science4#df ,origen1  
too1 states that for ourselves1 we      
maintain that human nature is in no way 
able to seek after ,god1 or to attain a 
clear knowledge of ,him without the help
 of ,him whom it seeks4#dg  ,the        
inconsistency between these two         
fundamental positions of the ,fathers1  
of which much is often made1 is1 ,i     
think1 more apparent than real4 ,for    
they make a clear distinction in their  
thought1 though the mere language which 
they use is sometimes confusing1 between
 knowledge of the existence of ,god--the
 undefined feeling or belief that there 
is a ,god--which is the innate opinion1 
for which they give every man credit2   
and the knowledge of ,god1 i4e41 of ,his
 attributes1 etc41 the subject-matter of
 dogmatic theology4 ,the existence of   
the former of these1 it is true1 as of  
the latter1 may be obscured and nearly  
obliterated by sin and the consequent   
disorganization2 for in the teaching of 

the ,fathers1 as in that of their       
,master1 it is the pure in heart that   
see ,god1#dh and it is only the man     
whose nature is kept in due balance by a
 life of moral rectitude--the righteous 
man of the ,scriptures--who can be      
expected to exhibit clearly this natural
 opinion or to attain to a full         
knowledge and appreciation of the       
,christian doctrine of ,god4 ,at the    
very best1 the knowledge of the ,deity  
attained apart from revelation seemed to
 the ,fathers to be1 in comparison with 
their own certainty1 miserably vague and
 conjectural1 and they are constantly   
contrasting1 in the most striking and   
graphic way1 the contradictory and      
uncertain results to which the          
philosophers attained with the          
definiteness and consistency of the     
already well-defined doctrine of the    
,christian church4 ,to them certainty in
 regard to knowledge of ,god can only   
come by means of the testimony of one   
who had seen and known1#di and this     

testimony they are satisfied that they  
find in two places chiefly--first1 in   
the testimony of the ,prophets of the   
,old ,testament1 and1 second1 but in    
fact primarily1 in the life and words of
 ,jesus ,christ1 the ,word4  ,of the    
antiquity and reliability of this first 
source--the ,prophets--they were never  
tired of talking1 and they were so      
confident of the necessity of resorting 
to it that they developed their famous  
theory of the indebtedness of ,plato and
 ,aristotle to those ,hebrew seers for  
their theology4 ,from every point of    
view1 therefore1 concludes ,st4 ,justin 
,martyr1 it must be seen that in no     
other way than only from the prophets1  
who teach us by divine inspiration1 is  
it at all possible to learn anything    
concerning ,god and the true            
religion4#ej  ,but the chief source from
 which the ,fathers drew that certainty 
which they could not find in the        
demonstrations of philosophy was in the 
teaching of the ,word1 ,jesus ,christ4  

,god1 indeed1 as we have seen1 is not an
 object of science1 but the ,son is     
wisdom and knowledge and truth1 and all 
else that has affinity thereto4 ,he is  
also susceptible of demonstration and of
 description4#ea ,it is in the incarnate
 ,word of ,god that the patristic       
writers find expressed all that man is  
able to comprehend1 and all that he     
needs to know in this present world1 of 
the ,divine ,nature1 and it is ,his     
words that confirm their confidence in  
that innate opinion of the existence of 
,god1 of the presence of which in every 
man they were so sure4  ,the subject of 
the demonstration of the existence of   
,god is spoken of at some length in     
several places by ,st4 ,clement of      
,alexandria1 and with his position most 
of the ,fathers agree in the main4 ,he  
regards the subject largely from an     
,aristotelian point of view4 ,all       
knowledge is derived from ,sensation and
 ,understanding4 ,intellectual          
apprehension is first in the order of   

nature2 but in our case1 and in relation
 to ourselves1 ,sensation is first1 and 
of ,sensation and ,understanding the    
essence of knowledge is formed1 and     
evidence is common to ,understanding and
 ,sensation4#eb ,but should any one say 
that knowledge is founded on            
demonstration 7which depends on primary 
and better known principles1#ec being   
discourse agreeable to reason1 producing
 belief in points disputed1 from points 
admitted#ed7 by a process of reasoning1 
let him hear that first principles are  
incapable of demonstration1 for they are
 neither by art 7techn71 which is       
practical solely1 and not theoretical1  
nor by sagacity 7phronsis  practical    
wisdom71 which is conversant about      
objects which are susceptible of        
change1#ee but are primary1             
self-evident1 and indemonstrable4#ef    
,thus this demonstration by a process of
 reasoning1 apart from ,sensation and   
,understanding1 is only to syllogize2   
for to draw the proper conclusion from  

the premisses is merely to syllogize4   
,but to have also each of the premisses 
true is not merely to have syllogized1  
but also to have demonstrated1 so that  
if there is demonstration at all1 there 
is an absolute necessity that there be  
something that is self-evident1 which is
 called primary and indemonstrable4#eg  
,on the basis of this theory of         
knowledge1 it is evident that the usual 
arguments for the existence of ,god     
would have but little weight4 ,for they 
either attempt to attain their end by   
formal thought alone1 and thus result in
 mere syllogizing2 or1 starting from    
valid enough premises1 they try to      
extend the conclusion beyond the limits 
imposed by the laws of demonstration4   
,for ,st4 ,clement1 then1 ,god is not   
apprehended by the science of           
demonstration4 ,if the ,deity is to be  
known1 there must be some place in which
 a union of the material and formal     
elements of demonstration of ,his       
existence is to be found4 ,this he      

places in the life and teaching of      
,jesus ,christ1 who1 as ,god incarnate1 
furnishes the evidence which is common  
to ,understanding and ,sensation1 and   
thus translates the ,infinite and       
,ineffable into terms of the finite and 
comprehensible4 ,in this paradox        
,christian theology has ever since been 
content to rest as one of the           
fundamental mysteries of the ,faith4    
,but even with all the aids of          
revelation1 the ,fathers would not claim
 that man can advance to a full or      
adequate knowledge of ,god--we can      
simply know so much about ,god as is    
necessary for practical purposes--for   
ascertaining our proper end and duties4 
,god is1 from the very limitations of   
the human mind1 ineffable1              
incomprehensible1 the unknown2#eh and   
,st4 ,clement of ,alexandria expressly  
states even the best knowledge of ,god  
that man can by any means attain is only
 negative4#ei  ,these general positions1
 which in their broad lines are common  

to practically all of the ,ante-,nicene 
,fathers1 serve to confirm the          
historical interpretation of the place  
occupied by early ,christian theistic   
thought1 and will pave the way to an    
appreciation of their use of the        
arguments for the existence of ,god4    
,,footnotes3  #bh ,enchiridion1 #di4    
#bi ,adversus ,grammaticos1 ,i1 #dd4    
#cj ,hatch3 ,hibbert ,lectures1 #ahhh1  
,lect4 ,,ii1 where a full account is    
given of the education of the time1 and 
what it signified4  #ca ,i1 #g4  #cb    
,philosophy and ,theology1 p4 #afd4  #cc
 ,see e4g41 ,st4 ,justin ,martyr3       
,dialogue with ,trypho1 ,,ii4  #cd      
,second ,apology1 ,,vi4  #ce ,dialogue  
with ,trypho1 ,,iv 7end74  #cf          
,stromata1 ,v1 #ad4  #cg ,against       
,marcion1 ,i1 #aj4  #ch ,resurrection of
 the ,flesh1 ,,iii4  #ci ,apology1      
,,xvii4  #dj ,against ,celsus1 ,,ii1    
#dj4  #da ,treatise ,,vi1  #i4 ,see1    
also1 ,tertullian3 ,apology1 ,,xvii2    
,and this is the crowning guilt of men  

that they will not recognize ,one of    
whom they cannot possibly be ignorant4  
#db ,against the ,heathen1 ,i4 #cc4  #dc
 ,dialogue with ,trypho1 ,,iv1 ,even    
,homer distinguishes simple seeing      
7idein7 from noein1 which implies       
perception by the mind as consequent    
upon sight4  #dd ,hortatory ,address to 
the ,greeks1 ,v4  #de ,exhortation to   
the ,heathen1 ,,xi4  #df ,stromata1     
,,iv1 #be4 ,in ,v1 #ab1 he explains what
 he means by demonstration3 ,nor any    
more is ,he apprehended by the science  
of demonstration1 for it depends on     
primary and better known principles4    
,but there is nothing antecedent to the 
,unbegotten4  #dg ,against ,celsus1     
,,vii1 #bj4 ,see also ,,vii1 #dd1 and   
,clem4 ,alex43 ,stromata1 ,,ii1 ii1 #d1 
and often4  #dh ,e4g41 ,theophilus 7,i1 
#a1 #b7 replies to the demand3 ,show me 
thy ,god1 by the counter-demand3 ,show  
me yourself1 and ,i will show you my    
,god4  #di ,e4g41 ,st4 ,justin3         
,hortatory ,address1 ,v4  #ej ,ibid41   

,,xxxviii4 ,see also ,v1 ,,viii1 and    
,athenagoras3 ,embassy1 ,,vii2 ,clem4   
,alex43 ,exhortion to ,heathen1 ,,vi1   
,,xi2 ,stromata1 ,i1 #ac2 ,,ii1 #b1 #aa2
 ,v1 #ad2 ,tertullian3 ,apology1        
,,xviii2 ,methodius3 ,miscellaneous     
,fragments1 #a4  #ea ,st4 ,clem4 ,alex43
 ,stromata1 ,,iv1 #be4 ,for a few among 
many references1 see3 ,st4 ,irenaeus3   
,against ,heresies1 ,v1 i1 #a2 ,st4     
,clem4 ,alex43 ,exhortation to ,heathen1
 ,,xi2 ,instructor1 ,i1 #ab2 ,stromata1 
,i1 #e1 #ai2 ,,ii1 #b2 ,v1 #a1 #f1      
#aa-ac2 ,,vii1 #a2 ,,vi1 #e2            
,tertullian3 ,against ,marcion1 ,v1 #af2
 ,against ,praxeas1 ,,xiv2 ,origen3 ,de 
,principiis ,i1 iii1 #a2 ,against       
,celsus1 ,,vii1 #db1 #dd2 ,novatian3 ,de
 ,trinitate1 ,,viii2 ,arnobius3 ,against
 the ,heathen1 ,i1 #ch4  #eb ,stromata1 
,,ii1 #d3 ek de aisthses kai tou nou h  
ts epistms synistatai ousia koinon de   
nou te kai aisthses to enarges4 ,the    
student of ,kant's ,kritik der ,reinen  
,vernunft will find a number of familiar

 passages in ,st4 ,clement4  #ec ,ibid41
 ,v1 #ab4  #ed ,ibid41 ,,viii1 #c4  #ee 
,ibid41 ,,ii1 #d4  #ef ,ibid41 ,,viii1  
#c4  #eg ,stromata1 ,,viii1 #c4  #eh    
,e4g41 ,theophilus3 ,to ,autolycus1 ,i1 
#c2 ,st4 ,clem4 ,alex43 ,stromata1 ,v1  
#ab4  #ei ,stromata1 ,v1 #ab3 ,if1 then1
 abstracting all that belongs to bodies 
and things called incorporeal1 we cast  
ourselves into the greatness of ,christ1
 and then advance into immensity by     
holiness1 we may reach somehow to the   
conception of the ,almighty1 knowing not
 what ,he is1 but what ,he is not4      
,,chapter ,,iv  ,,patristic ,,use ,,of  
,,the ,,theistic ,,arguments   ,from    
this account of the general attitude of 
the ante-,nicene writers toward a       
possible knowledge of ,god1 it will     
readily be anticipated that the forms of
 the theistic argument used by ,plato   
and by ,aristotle will find no place in 
their system4 ,st4 ,clement of          
,alexandria1 in a passage already       
referred to1#fj shows that any          

,ontological or ,idealogical argument   
can only lead us to an ,unknown1 which  
may be understood and given meaning by  
the ,word alone that proceeds from ,him2
 and he and others of the early         
,christian writers seem to hint at that 
distinction between ,epistemology and   
,ontology which has always been the     
chief enemy of any purely rational      
theistic argument4 ,the ,aetiological   
argument1 too1 is not explicitly stated 
by them2 and1 though ,lactantius does1  
in opposing atheistic atomism1 ask the  
question1 ,whence are those minute      
seeds8 yet the casual character of the  
inquiry shows the small emphasis he     
placed on it1 and the silence of the    
other writers1 even when there was every
 opportunity for calling attention to   
such an argument1 gives evidence to     
their estimate of its usefulness4  ,it  
is the more practical and common-sense  
forms of the theistic argument--the     
,cosmological1 the ,teleological1 the   
argument from common consent1 and       

mixtures of these types--that the early 
,christian writers use most frequently1 
and in this they do but conform to the  
general tendency of their age1 as well  
as to the practical spirit of           
,christianity4 ,as we have seen1 the    
more artificial and abstract arguments  
of ,plato and ,aristotle did not take   
much hold upon others than their        
originators or formulators1 and the     
distinct tendency of the theology of the
 later ,greek and ,latin schools of     
philosophy was toward the more concrete 
forms of the theistic argument4 ,and    
this inclination would be emphasized in 
the early ,christian writers1 so far as 
they make use of the argument at all1 by
 the eminently simple and common-sense  
attitude of ,christianity toward all    
such problems1 and also by the peculiar 
work which the primitive ,church had to 
do in the conversion of the common      
people1 to whom an abstract argument    
would have been a waste of words4  ,but 
we should expect that to men1 upon whom 

a close perusal and study of the ,old   
,testament ,scriptures had impressed the
 idea of ,god as the ,creator1          
,law-,giver and ,governor of the        
universe1 the ,cosmological argument    
would appeal strongly4 ,moreover1 the   
strong ,stoic influence which is seen in
 their works1 particularly in their     
treatment of questions of morals1 and in
 their ethical terminology1 would       
naturally1 one would think1 pre-dispose 
them to regard with favor this argument1
 so in vogue among the philosophers of  
the ,porch4 ,it is1 therefore1 all the  
more remarkable that1 among the         
important works of the ,ante-,nicene    
,fathers1 not more than a dozen         
instances1 at most1 of this argument can
 be found2 and of these more than half  
are merely passing references to the    
patent fact of order in the world4 ,thus
 ,tertullian asserts 7quite             
incidentally1 in the course of an       
argument on an ethical question71 that  
,nature herself is the teacher of the   

fact that ,god is the ,maker of the     
universe1#fa but even here it is        
doubtful whether he means to appeal to  
order or design in the world4 ,in       
another place he makes the mere         
statement that the fact of ,god's       
existence is tested by ,his works2 ,his 
character by the beneficence of them2#fb
 in another that the ,creator ought to  
be known even by nature2#fc and in still
 another that nature teaches all men the
 existence and character of ,god4#fd    
,origen in a passage sometimes quoted1  
appeals to the order and harmony of the 
world1#fe but it is to prove the unity  
of ,god rather than ,his existence4     
,perhaps the best and most elaborate    
example of the use of the ,cosmological 
argument by the ,ante-,nicene authors1  
is that made of it by ,athenagoras the  
,athenian2 ,philosopher and ,christian1 
as he styled himself4#ff ,he is         
concerned with making a distinction     
between ,god and matter1 in opposition  
to the popular idolatry1 and declares   

that ,christians see the ,framer behind 
the orderly world--whose relation one to
 the other he likens to that between the
 artist and the materials of his art4   
,but as clay cannot become vessels of   
itself without art1 so neither did      
matter1 which is capable of taking all  
forms1 receive apart from ,god the      
,framer1 distinction and shape and      
order4  ,and these few incidental and   
scattered instances represent           
practically the explicit use of the     
,cosmological argument in the writings  
with which we are occupied4 ,when we    
consider how constantly they must have  
met with the statements of it which are 
prevalent in the writings of the        
,stoics1 by whom they were1 we know1    
profoundly influenced in both the form  
and the terminology of their thought1 we
 must surely consider this omission a   
significant fact1 for which it is worth 
while trying to account4  ,nor does the 
,socratic proof1 the argument to design1
 meet with any more cordial reception at

 the hands of early ,christian writers4 
,although the cases in which it is used 
are generally more explicit and fully   
developed1 yet the appeals to design in 
nature are fewer even than those to     
order4 ,the earliest1 and one of the    
best examples of the use of this        
argument is that made by ,theophilus1   
,bishop of ,antioch1 in his work        
addressed to the idolater ,autolycus4#fg
 ,he seeks to prove that the invisible  
,god is perceived through ,his works4   
,as the soul is unseen1 yet perceived   
through the motion of the body2 as the  
pilot is inferred from the motion of the
 ship2 as the king1 though not present  
in person1 is believed to exist from his
 laws1 ordinances and authorities2 so   
the unseen ,god is beheld and perceived 
through his providence and works4       
,consider1 ,o man1 ,his works1 he       
exclaims2 and proceeds to enumerate the 
evidences of design in the universe--the
 timely rotation of the seasons1 the    
regular march of the stars1 the various 

beauty of seeds and plants and fruits1  
and many others4 ,it is a passage of    
considerable beauty1 and evidences no   
mean rhetorical skill4  ,it is in this  
same connection--in the refutation of   
idolatry--that ,st4 ,clement of         
,alexandria uses this argument1         
contrasting the living organism of man  
with the heathen idols4#fh ,none of     
these 7artists7 ever made a breathing   
image1 or out of earth moulded soft     
flesh4 ,who liquefied the marrow8 or who
 solidified the bones8 who stretched the
 nerves8 who distended the veins8 who   
poured the blood into them8 or who      
spread the skin8 who ever could have    
made eyes capable of seeing8 who        
breathed spirit into the lifeless form8 
who bestowed righteousness8 who promised
 immortality8 ,the ,maker of the        
universe alone2 the great ,artist and   
,father has formed us1 such a living    
image as man is4 ,but your ,olympian    
,jove1 the image of an image1 greatly   
out of harmony with truth1 is the       

senseless work of ,attic hands4 ,this1  
it will be readily seen1 is more an     
attempt to show the insufficiency of    
idolatry to account for man's nature1   
than a deliberate attempt at theistic   
proof4  ,the other examples of the use  
of this form of the argument for the    
existence of ,god are found in          
,lactantius1 the ,christian ,cicero4 ,in
 speaking of ,socrates he introduces#fi 
with approval an epitome of the         
,athenian sage's argument1 which we have
 already considered1#gj and1 in         
combatting the atomistic theory of the  
origin of the world1 he asserts#ga that 
neither atoms nor the ,nature of        
,lucretius can account for the          
adaptations in the actual world2 and the
 phenomena of mind1 especially1 proclaim
 an intelligent ,providence4 ,his       
treatise ,on the ,workmanship of ,god1  
or the ,formation of ,man1 is almost    
entirely an argument to design from the 
phenomena of man's physical and mental  
nature4 ,from the standpoint of the     

physiology and psychology of his time1  
he discusses in detail the function and 
working of the different parts of man's 
nature1 and from the adaptation of means
 to ends1 of organs to their functions1 
which1 even with the scanty data of the 
science of that day1 is a striking      
consideration1 he concludes that man's  
being can only be accounted for on the  
supposition of an ,arranger or ,planner1
 whose purposes are carried out in      
exercise of the various functions4  ,the
 argument e ,consensu ,gentium has often
 been accredited with being peculiarly  
the patristic argument for the existence
 of ,god1#gb and for this conclusion the
 use of it in ,epicurean theology1 and  
the doctrine of the natural1 innate idea
 of ,god already considered1 would fully
 prepare us2 but the fact is that1 apart
 from frequent passing references to the
 natural opinion mentioned in the       
preceding chapter1 the instances in     
which the argument is explicitly made   
use of are not much more numerous than  

in the case of the other forms4 ,they   
constantly appeal to the common consent1
 but it is generally against polytheism1
 as indicating a consciousness of the   
unity of ,god4 ,st4 ,justin ,martyr1 in 
the passage to which we have already    
alluded1 asserts#gc this common consent1
 but only as preparatory to the         
certainty which he finds in revelation4 
,st4 ,clement of ,alexandria1 after     
asserting that the ,father and ,maker of
 all things is apprehended by all       
things1 agreeably to all1 by innate     
power1 and without teaching1 goes on to 
confirm his statement in this manner3#gd
 ,but no race anywhere1 of tillers of   
the soil1 or nomads1 and not even of    
dwellers in cities1 can live without    
being imbued with the faith of a        
superior being4 ,wherefore1 every       
eastern nation1 and every nation        
touching the western shore2 or the      
north1 and each one toward the          
south--all have one and the same        
preconception respecting ,him1 who hath 

appointed government2 since the most    
universal of ,his operations equally    
pervade all4 ,it is with the principles 
and end of this argument in view that   
,tertullian appeals#ge to the witness of
 the soul1 not as when fashioned in     
schools1 trained in libraries1 fed in   
,attic academies and porticoes1 but     
rude1 uncultured and untaught1 such as  
they have thee who have thee only2 that 
very thing of the road1 the street1 the 
workshop wholly2 and from his           
examination of this ordinary soul he    
concludes that the knowledge of our ,god
 is possessed by all4#gf ,minucius      
,felix appeals to this same common      
instinct and exclaims3#gg ,what6 is it  
not true that ,i have in this matter the
 consent of all men8 and ,origen1 in his
 reply to the attack of ,celsus1 points 
to the ineradicable idea of ,him4#gh    
,novatian asserts#gi that the whole mind
 of man is conscious of ,him1 even if   
does not express itself1 and ,lactantius
 thinks that for ,cicero it was no      

difficult task1 indeed1 to refute the   
falsehoods of a few men who entertained 
perverse sentiments by the testimony of 
communities and tribes1 who on this one 
point had no disagreement4#hj  ,besides 
these instances in which the different  
types of the theistic argument are used 
in an undeveloped1 but yet in a pure    
form1 there are several places where a  
mixed form appears1 the different       
conventional processes being used in    
combination without being clearly       
differentiated4 ,thus the argument from 
common consent and the argument based on
 order or design are used in            
conjunction1 the necessity of the       
universal knowledge of ,god's existence 
being seen from the witness to ,him     
found in nature4#ha ,so1 too1 the       
arguments from order and from design in 
nature are often used in conjunction1   
and in many passages it is difficult to 
decide to which one of these two the    
author intends to appeal primarily4#hb  
,these undifferentiated or mixed        

arguments are quite frequently to be    
seen in the patristic writings1 and     
serve to illustrate the eclectic        
character of their thoughts1 often      
presenting in one passage the forms of  
the theistic arguments peculiar to two  
opposed schools in ,greek philosophy2   
and they also indicate how incidentally 
and navely the ,fathers used such       
weapons1 not taking the trouble to      
differentiate one form from the other1  
though they could not have been ignorant
 of such distinctions4  ,the first thing
 that strikes one's attention in this   
examination of the use of the theistic  
argument in the early ,christian writers
 is1 as has been indicated1 the paucity 
of examples4 ,when we consider the      
emphasis laid upon this subject in the  
contemporaneous philosophical schools2  
the constant appeal to one form or      
another of the argument by ,stoic and   
,epicurean alike2 the various           
combinations and adaptations made by    
,eclectics and ,syncretists2 the use of 

such material in the exercises of the   
rhetorical instruction then so prominent
 in education2 it would seem that a     
weapon so ready to their hand must have 
been seized upon by the ,fathers1 and   
made full use of for the advancement of 
the cause in which they were enlisted4  
,and this silence on their part cannot  
be due to ignorance of what had been    
written on the subject1 or of what was  
going on in the world about them4 ,the  
patristic writings show the keenest     
interest in1 and fullest knowledge of   
what men were thinking about in the     
outside world as well as within the     
,church4 ,many of the ,fathers1 as we   
have had occasion to notice1 had been   
trained in the philosophical schools1#hc
 and show themselves fully conversant   
not only with such subjects1 but with   
poetry and general literature as        
well4#hd ,in the course of their        
education1 as well as in their reading1 
they must have become fully acquainted  
with all the forms of the theistic      

argument4 ,and this knowledge they had  
every opportunity to use4 ,many of their
 works that have come down to us are    
either apologies or else answers to     
critics of ,christianity1 who attacked  
its doctrines from the stand-point of   
either polytheism or atheism4 ,in       
maintaining the ,christian doctrine of  
,god against these opponents1 the       
theistic argument would seem to be a    
most natural weapon for one who was     
confident of its validity4 ,but the fact
 is1 that in most of these apologies no 
such reasoning is employed1 and even    
when it is to be found in their pages1  
is only incidental and by way of        
illustration1 to explain the rational   
character of the ,christian doctrine of 
,god by a sort of argumentum ad hominem4
  ,one reason for this neglect of the   
theistic argument may be readily found  
in the subject-matter of the treatises  
themselves4 ,almost exclusively with the
 earlier ,fathers1 as we have seen1 and 
very largely with their successors1 the 

emphasis was laid on life1 rather than  
on thought1 and the appeal was to       
authority rather than to reason4 ,men   
were asked to judge of ,christianity by 
its fruits1 and to receive the faith    
which it professed1 not because of its  
rational demonstration1 but because of  
the authority of ,him who promulgated   
it4 ,the persons to whom the arguments  
were addressed1 too1 explain much of the
 silence of the ,fathers4 ,to the ,jew  
or religious ,gentile it would be       
superfluous to address elaborate        
arguments to prove the existence of     
,god1 and it was to these classes that  
many of the works under discussion were 
addressed4 ,to them the argument1 such  
as we frequently find1 from the ,old    
,testament types and prophecies1 or from
 the superior beauty and morality of the
 ,christian doctrine and life1 taking   
for granted the existence of ,god1 was  
what the case required4 ,and when1 as is
 very frequently the case1 they address 
the popular idolaters1 it is a negative 

argument to show the unworthiness of    
idol-worship1 and the superiority of    
their own doctrine1 of which they       
naturally make use1 and not a theistic  
argument which would have no            
significance to those who were already  
too religious4  ,many of the apologies  
of the early ,church were called forth  
by the attacks which were made on the   
,christians by the adherents of the     
popular religions4 ,the charges usually 
brought against them were those of      
atheism1 because of their rejection of  
the gods of ,greece and ,rome2 of       
immorality1 because of the secrecy and  
mystery of their meetings1 and          
cannibalism1 because of their doctrine  
of the partaking of the ,body and ,blood
 of ,christ in the ,eucharist4 ,in      
refuting these charges1 especially the  
first1 no place was afforded for the use
 of a theistic argument1 but they       
naturally exhibit their belief in ,god  
as superior to that of their accusers1  
and appeal to their lives as justifying 

their belief4  ,but aside from these    
cases in which the theistic argument    
would have been superfluous1 there are  
many places in which it is conspicuous  
for its absence4 ,that they had other   
arguments besides those from scripture  
and authority1 and that they believed in
 using them when necessary1 we have1 as 
we have seen1 many proofs in their      
writings4 ,their position is well       
indicated by ,lactantius1 who blamed    
,st4 ,cyprian for using a ,scripture    
argument to an unbeliever1#he and we    
shall be obliged to look deeper than    
mere ignorance or lack of occasion to   
account for the paucity of cases in     
which they use the argument for the     
existence of ,god4  ,the fact is that   
the history of ,greek thought had shown 
conclusively the absolute futility of   
any efforts to arrive at a certain proof
 of the existence of ,god by purely     
rational methods4 ,the attempts of each 
school to attain such certainty were    
repudiated by their successors1 and even

 by their contemporaries2 and the later 
trials--which the religious instincts   
and aspirations of men would not permit 
them to forego1 even when they were     
sceptical of obtaining any valid and    
positive results--frequently became1    
instead of a sincere seeking after ,god1
 mere practice in the art of ,rhetoric4 
,and not only was it true that no one of
 the forms of the theistic argument     
brought conviction to any other mind    
than that of the man who regarded it    
with the partial enthusiasm of an       
originator or formulator1 but even such 
an one was led to only the most vague   
and indefinite results4 ,we have already
 seen how even the best theology of the 
,greeks led to nothing but a sort of    
organized or unified polytheism4 ,a     
vague1 fanciful first cause of physical 
phenomena1 a general idea1 abstracted   
out of all content1 so as to leave no   
meaning for the human mind--whatever the
 imagination might make of it--a        
mechanical1 magnetic force1 to which all

 motion might conveniently be referred2 
a deified principle of order--and these 
held in conjunction with the popular    
polytheism1 and impregnated with the    
national pantheistic conceptions--was   
all that ,greek philosophy could offer  
to the higher religious aspirations of  
the educated man4 ,the opinion of the   
,greek mind itself as to the character  
of the knowledge of ,god1 to which the  
thought of their race had led them at   
the beginning of the ,christian era was 
fitly expressed by those ,athenians1 who
 erected near the ,areopagus the altar  
on which was written1 ',to the ,unknown 
,god4'#hf ,the opinion 7for in most     
cases it did not amount to a conviction7
 that there was an ,unknown 7or even1 as
 many thought1 an ,unknowable7 ,divinity
 of some sort1 which might account for  
the phenomena of the world1 and which   
might be the truth behind the vagaries  
of the anthropomorphic polytheism1 was  
as far as ,greek thought had led men at 
the period with which we have to do4    

,their theos was really nothing more    
than ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's           
,unknowable1--a mysterious force1 to    
which everything was referred which     
could not be accounted for on the basis 
of scientific principles4  ,now if this 
was the case with the adherents of the  
heathen philosophical schools1 how must 
the realization of the poverty of this  
result1 and the distrust of the means   
which led to it1 have been emphasized by
 the conversion of individuals from them
 to ,christianity4 ,it is a graphic     
picture which some of the ,fathers paint
 for us of their eager search1 in the   
different schools in turn1 for some     
religious truth which would bring with  
it conviction2 of their disappointment  
and consequent despair and scepticism1  
and then of the satisfaction which they 
had found for their aspirations in the  
teaching of ,jesus ,christ1 who1 they   
were convinced1 was the very ,word of   
,god4 ,viewed merely from the historical
 point of view1 this process is full of 

interest as illustrating that which was 
going on in many minds that stopped at  
the sceptical stage1 and1 for one reason
 or another1 never found refuge in the  
,christian ,church4 ,but for those who  
did take this step1 their former        
distrust of the theistic argument1 as a 
basis for religious conviction1 must    
have been greatly emphasized4 ,the      
contrast between their former scepticism
 as to man's ability to attain to any   
knowledge of things beyond the          
phenomenal world1 and their present     
faith and conviction which their belief 
in the ,person of ,christ gave them1    
must have made the part of any such     
means of arriving at truth as the       
already discredited theistic argument   
most insignificant4 ,they1 themselves1  
had no need for it4 ,all it had been    
able to do for them1 as for those to    
whom they wrote1 was to raise an        
aspiration which would not down--to     
bring them to the hypothesis            
7substituted for polytheism1 now        

outgrown7 of an ,unknown ,god1 and they 
felt that their message to their        
contemporaries was1 like that of ,st4   
,paul to the ,athenians on ,areopagus3  
,whom1 therefore1 ye ignorantly worship1
 ,him declare ,i unto you4  ,it is with 
this attitude in mind1 ,i am convinced1 
that we must interpret the doctrine1 so 
often enunciated by the early ,christian
 writers1 but especially by ,st4 ,justin
 ,martyr and ,st4 ,clement of           
,alexandria1 of the partial1 fragmentary
 character of the theological truth     
arrived at by ,greek philosophy4 ,they  
have sometimes been charged with        
inconsistency in thus characterizing the
 work of men from whom they borrowed so 
much1 but they seem1 in fact1 to have   
been remarkably appreciative of their   
old masters when we consider the        
position in which they stood4 ,in fact1 
they seem to grant to ,greek philosophy 
all that its adherents would claim for  
it1 namely1 that1 by means of the       
arguments adduced by its different      

schools1 the ,greeks had attained to the
 opinion that there was something behind
 the phenomena of nature1 but this might
 as well be a transcendent force or a   
pantheistic world-soul as an immanent   
,god4 ,with the ,apostle on ,mars' ,hill
 they would say that the best theology  
of the ,greeks simply put them in a     
position that they should seek the      
,lord1 if haply they might feel after   
,him and find ,him4  ,and each of the   
,greek schools1 they would say1 by      
resting their case on some one of the   
various arguments1 and emphasizing some 
one of the attributes of the ,deity at  
the expense of the others1 had attained 
only a partial and inadequate view1     
though true so far as it went4 ,since1  
therefore1 says ,st4 ,clement of        
,alexandria1#hg truth is one 7for       
falsehood has ten thousand by-paths72   
just as the ,bacchantes tore asunder the
 limbs of ,pentheus1 so the sects both  
of barbarian and ,hellenic philosophy   
have done with truth1 and each vaunts as

 the whole truth the portion which has  
fallen to its lot4 ,but all1 in my      
opinion1 are illuminated by the dawn of 
,light4 ,these men were deeply          
appreciative of the work of ,greek      
philosophy so far as it went--even      
assigning to it a place analogous to the
 ,hebrew ,scriptures#hh--;but they      
always attribute to it a distinctly     
propdeutic office1 and are careful to   
emphasize its failure to lead to any    
firm and positive conviction of the     
existence of ,god4 ,that this was the   
position of the early ,christian        
philosophers might be shown by many     
passages1 but we will content ourselves 
with one example from the pages of ,st4 
,clement of ,alexandria1 who assigned to
 ,greek philosophy a higher place than  
any of the patristic writers--so much so
 that his orthodoxy has frequently been 
questioned because of it4 ,he is fond of
 designating the knowledge of ,god to   
which the ,greeks had attained by the   
term periphrasis4 ,thus he concludes#hi 

an argument from common consent1 already
 quoted1 in these words3 ,much more did 
the philosophers among the ,greeks1     
devoted to investigation1 starting from 
the ,barbarian philosophy1 attribute    
providence to the 'invisible1 and sole  
and most powerful1 and most skilful and 
supreme cause of all things1 most       
beautiful2'--not knowing the influences 
from these truths1 unless instructed by 
us1 and not even how ,god is to be known
 naturally1 but only1 as we have already
 often said1 by a true periphrasis4 ,the
 men of highest repute among the ,greeks
 knew ,god1 not by positive knowledge1  
but by indirect expression              
7periphrasis74#ij ,the indefinite and   
merely probable character of the results
 which the ,fathers think were reached  
by the theistic argument in ,greek      
thought explains to us the few examples 
of these proofs which we find in their  
writings1 and the certainty which they  
thought they had found1 and their       
consequent attitude toward all arguments

 of this nature1 which we have tried to 
depict1 is the key to the explanation of
 a new phase in the history of thought  
which was to last for several centuries4
  ,in our examination of these examples 
of the theistic argument in the         
,fathers1 it cannot escape our notice   
that they occur much more frequently1   
and in more developed and conventional  
form in the ,west than in the           
,east--under the influence of ,rome than
 under that of ,alexandria and the      
,orient4 ,the reason for this is not far
 to seek1 and is one that throws light  
also on the motive with which the       
patristic writers made use of these     
arguments4  ,in ,alexandria and the     
,east there was no incentive for the    
,christians to try to prove the         
existence of ,god1 for the philosophy of
 that portion of the world was          
essentially religious in its character1 
and based its speculation on the        
existence of ,god as a fundamental      
postulate of revelation and of reason as

 well4 ,in the combination of ,judaism  
and ,hellenic philosophy made by the    
,hellenizing ,jews and by the ,judaizing
 ,hellenes1 the existence of ,god was   
admitted quite as freely1 and maintained
 quite as zealously1 as by the          
,christians themselves1 and even the    
incipient ,neo-,platonists made no      
quarrel with them on this ground4 ,so we
 find that the reference in the         
,alexandrian and other ,eastern ,fathers
 are mainly of the character of examples
 and illustrations as to principles that
 are well understood and admitted1 and  
are employed chiefly for the purpose of 
refuting idolatry by a distinction      
between ,god and matter1 or of proving  
the unity of ,god in opposition to the  
still latent polytheism4  ,under the    
influence of ,rome1 however1 other      
tendencies came in to give a rather     
different significance to the theistic  
argument4 ,for ,rome had become the     
chief center of the later schools of    
,greek philosophy1 and under the shadow 

of the seven hills rather than in the   
,athenian groves and porticoes were     
found the disciples of ,pyrrho1 of ,zeno
 and of ,epicurus4 ,thus1 very          
naturally1 wherever ,roman civilization 
was dominant the teacher of ,christian  
doctrine was obliged to present his     
subject with reference to the forces    
already at work in the minds of those   
whom he addressed4 ,in accordance with  
this1 we find1 first1 a negative        
influence in the hostile attitude       
assumed by the ,sceptics and members of 
other schools who tended toward their   
position1 toward any religious          
knowledge4 ,that this influence is not  
an imaginary one may be seen especially 
in the instance already quoted from     
,lactantius1 whose use of the theistic  
argument is called forth by the cavils  
of ,sceptics and atheistic atomists4    
,but there was also a positive influence
 at work to facilitate the use of the   
theistic argument by the ,western       
,fathers in the prevalence at ,rome of  

,stoic and ,epicurean doctrine4 ,from   
the former of these schools would result
 a familiarity1 and1 in many cases1 an  
agreement with the forms of the argument
 drawn from order and design2 from the  
latter1 for the demonstration from      
common consent4 ,both of these          
influences1 no doubt1 had some influence
 on the shape in which ,tertullian of   
,carthage1 ,minucius ,felix1 ,novatian  
and ,lactantius presented their         
doctrine1 and1 together with the more   
material and less religious character of
 the ,west1 accounts in large degree for
 the comparative frequency of their     
appeal to the theistic argument4  ,but  
when we consider the frequency with     
which we meet with the theistic         
argument1 and with reference to its use 
in other writers1 in the pages of       
,cicero1 for example1 these scanty      
instances afforded us by the writings of
 the ante-,nicene ,fathers1 whose works 
occupy1 say1 #d1ejj large1              
closely-printed pages in the            

translation1 and who were1 let us       
remember1 dealing exclusively with      
religious thought1 indicate plainly a   
fundamental change in position1 the     
influence of which was operative for    
centuries in this department of thought1
 and which1 even to-day1 governs the    
attitude of the greater part of the     
,western world4 ,the absolute failure of
 the ,greeks to arrive at any certainty 
of ,god's existence by demonstration1   
the introduction of the ,christian      
doctrine of ,god1 before which the      
deductions of ,greek philosophy seem    
empty and unsatisfactory1 even to many  
who cannot accept that doctrine as      
truth1 and the substitution of faith in 
a ,person for purely rational proof1    
render it impossible1 so long as that   
faith continues1 that any one should    
think it worth while to devote more than
 a passing notice to any such argument1 
unless for the purposes of an argumentum
 ad hominem4 ,and so it is not until    
faith begins to grow cold and men become

 mere speculators and debaters about    
religion1 rather than believers in      
,christ1 that the revival of these      
arguments under the title of proofs is  
possible4 ,even the famous ,ontological 
,argument of ,st4 ,anselm was1 ,i am    
convinced1 no serious attempt to        
formulate an a priori proof of the      
existence of ,god1 but was addressed to 
a particular case#ia--the fool who said 
in his heart1 ',there is no ,god1' and  
who also maintained that ,god was that  
than which no greater can be thought4   
,from this survey it will be seen that1 
in the view of the ,ante-,nicene        
,christian authors1 the theistic        
argument was valuable merely as a       
propdeutic to ,christianity1 but was    
superfluous for the believer in ,jesus  
,christ2 the use of it cannot1 as it had
 not in ,greek thought1 bring proof1 but
 only probability2 even this uncertain  
result is only vague and fragmentary in 
character1 and was never unified and    
made significant by the ,greeks2 its    

office in ,christian evidences was      
merely of an ad hominem sort1 and this  
only in its simpler and more practical  
forms1 in which the senses as well as   
reason had their testimony to bear2 and1
 lastly1 the argument was used much more
 frequently by the ,western than by the 
,alexandrian and other ,eastern         
,fathers4  ,,footnotes3  #fj ,stromata1 
,v1 #ab4  #fa ,de ,spectaculis1 ,,ii4   
#fb ,against ,marcion1 ,i1 #ag4  #fc    
,ibid41 ,v1 #af4 ,this is to justify his
 doctrine of the punishment of the      
heathen4  #fd ,scapula1 ,,ii4  #fe      
,against ,celsus1 ,i1 #bc4  #ff ,plea   
for the ,christians1 ,,xv1 ,,xvi4  #fg  
,i1 #e and #f4  #fh ,exhortation to the 
,heathen1 ,x4  #fi ,divine ,institutes1 
,,iii1 #bj4  #gj ,chap4 ,,ii4  #ga      
,treatise on the ,anger of ,god1 ,x4    
#gb ,e4g41 ,stirling3 ,philosophy and   
,theology1 p4 #agi4  #gc ,trypho1 ,,iii1
 ,,iv4  #gd ,stromata1 ,v1 #ad4  #ge    
,the ,soul's ,testimony1 ,i4  #gf ,of   
the ,resurrection of the ,flesh1 ,,iii4 

#gg ,octavius1 ,,xviii4  #gh ,against   
,celsus1 ,,ii1 #dj4  #gi ,de ,trinitate1
 ,,viii4  #hj ,divine ,institutes1 ,i1  
#b4  #ha ,e4g41 ,irenaeus3 ,against     
,heresy1 ,,ii1 #i1 #a2 ,tertullian3     
,against ,marcion1 ,i1 #aj2 ,origen3 ,de
 ,principiis1 ,i1 #c1 #a2 ,tertullian3  
,apology1 ,,xvii2 ,lactantius3 ,divine  
,institutes1 ,i1 #b4  #hb ,e4g41        
,minucius ,felix3 ,octavius1 ,,xvii1    
,,xviii2 ,novatian3 ,de ,trinitate      
,,viii2 ,dionysius the ,great3          
,fragments1 ,,ii1 #a4  #hc ,e4g41       
,justin1 in ,philosopher's garb1        
preached the word of ,god4 ,eusebius1   
,,iv1 #aa4  #hd ,the mere list of ,greek
 authors quoted by ,st4 ,clement of     
,alexandria occupies over fourteen      
quarto pages in ,fabricius' ,bibliotheka
 ,graeca4  #he ,divine ,institutes1 ,v4 
#d4  #hf ,acts1 ,,xvii1 #bc4  #hg       
,stromata1 ,i1 #ac4  #hh ,e4g41         
,stromata1 ,,vi1 #e3 ,the one and only  
,god was known by the ,greeks in a      
,gentile way1 by the ,jews ,judaically1 

and in a new and spiritual way by us4   
,in ,i1 #e1 he says3 ,for this          
7philosophy7 was a schoolmaster to bring
 the ,hellenic mind1 as the law the     
,hebrews1 to ,christ4  #hi ,stromata1   
,v1 #ad4  #ij ,ibid41 ,,vi1 #e4 ,see    
also1 e4g41 ,i1 #ai2 ,v1 #ac4  #ia ,see 
,stirling3 ,philosophy and ,theology1 p4
 #ce4     ,,chapter ,v  ,,eclectic      
,,theism   ,the early ,christian        
writers1 so far as they assumed any     
philosophical position1 were invariably 
,eclectics4 ,in this1 as we have seen1  
they were the true children of their    
age1 whose most striking characteristic 
was that it had deserted the older      
systems1 while attempting to preserve   
out of their ruins the particular truth 
for which each of the schools had       
contended4 ,but with the ,christian     
philosophers it was not merely the      
negative influence of scepticism which  
drove them to ,eclecticism4 ,their      
conviction of a sure knowledge of things
 divine--the final question for all     

philosophy--exerted a positive influence
 as well1 which led them to formulate   
more or less explicitly a view of the   
function of philosophy as an organon of 
the truth1 not merely with reference to 
the past history of ,greek thought1 as  
their contemporaries outside of the     
,christian ,church were accustomed to   
do1 but with a view to all possible     
speculation on the ,deity4 ,for this    
deposit of revealed truth1 to which they
 gave assent as the most certain of all 
knowledge1 they regarded as the whole   
truth1 of which the various speculations
 of philosophy on the existence and     
attributes of ,god1 were but portions   
and fragments--true and trustworthy so  
far as they went1 and from their own    
particular standpoint1 but1             
nevertheless1 essentially and           
necessarily partial1 and hence          
productive1 not of certainty1 but of    
mere opinion4  ,and this estimate of the
 function of philosophy with respect to 
theological truth1 which the ,fathers   

worked out on the basis of the concrete 
example of the course of ,greek thought1
 though with a view to a much wider     
application1 has its justification in   
the very nature and conditions of       
thought itself4 ,for philosophy is      
essentially a process--its very life    
depends on its being in motion1 in      
process of change and development4 ,each
 system is evolved out of its           
predecessors1 and contains within itself
 the germs of its successors--it is the 
link which connects the past with the   
future4 ,it expresses the common-sense1 
the unconscious convictions and         
instinctive tendencies of the time1 and 
the man who first gives voice to this   
unspoken message is the philosopher4 ,he
 utters the truth which the times       
demand--that which satisfies the        
conditions4 ,thus with ,professor       
,erdmann#ib the patristic writers would 
say that each statement of philosophical
 truth is the final truth only for that 
time4 ,it is the phase or aspect or     

particular statement of the truth which 
the times demand1 which the situation   
calls forth1 and which appeals most     
strongly to the minds that make up part 
of that situation4 ,changed conditions  
demand a different statement of the     
truth to satisfy them1 and furnish the  
data upon which such a statement is     
based4 ,philosophy1 like science1 does  
not really accumulate1 but is entirely  
transformed by each fresh hypothesis4   
,it is only the data that accumulate2   
and when we say that a new hypothesis is
 'truer' than that which preceded it1 we
 mean merely that it enables us to      
co-ordinate a larger number of these    
data4#ic ,and this transformation takes 
place1 in reality1 not only by addition1
 but by subtraction of data4 ,for it is 
a phenomenon common to the thought of   
all ages1 that each school not only     
calls attention to new data1 ignored by 
its predecessor1 but also shuts its eyes
 to more or less of the valid data set  
forth by the earlier system4 ,in no     

period of the history of thought were   
men more commonly led into abstractions 
by being dazzled by the brilliancy and  
novelty of the latest idea than in the  
pioneer age represented by ,greek       
philosophy1 when men had not yet        
attained to a clear perspective1 and the
 foot-hills often hid the lofty mountain
 peak4  ,it is this trait1 so evident in
 the nave thought of the ,greeks1 that  
makes it possible for the early         
,christian thinkers to take the         
attitude1 at once appreciative and      
critical with regard to the ,hellenic   
theology4 ,they borrowed much1 not only 
from the form1 but also from the results
 of the speculations of the             
philosophers1 but always with a deep    
sense of the limitations which the      
conditions imposed upon them4 ,socrates1
 ,plato1 ,aristotle and the rest had    
spoken the truth1 but each only from one
 point of view1 and on the basis of only
 one method of approach4 ,the           
conclusions of each were the result of a

 process of more or less complete       
abstraction1 and in abstractions the    
,fathers1 true to the genius of         
,christian thought1 could never rest    
content1 but could only accord to them  
the appreciation which belongs to a     
temporary and preliminary stage in the  
search for the final unity4  ,to this   
partial1 temporary1 relatively final1   
and constantly changing content1 the    
revealed doctrine of ,god1 manifested in
 due relations1 unity and completeness  
by the ,incarnate ,word1 stands with the
 ,fathers as the principle to the       
particular rule or application--as the  
whole to the part4 ,as the revelation of
 ,god it came to them1 not as the result
 of man's investigation and speculation1
 colored by every change of time1 place 
and environment1 a mere momentary phase 
of a process2 but as eternal verity1    
viewed1 so far as man's powers would    
allow1 in its entirety and unity4       
,dorner expresses their position well   
when he says that in ,christianity as   

the organism of the truth1 the elements 
of truth1 elsewhere here and there to be
 met with in a scattered form or a      
disfigured guise1 come together in      
unity--a unity which1 as it personally  
appeared in the ,god-,man1 so in the    
course of history ever more and more    
rises upon the consciousness of mankind4
 ,the ,fathers think that in the        
,christian doctrine of ,god they find   
all the true elements contributed by    
previous thought1 and besides these an  
infinite depth of truth unthought of by 
the ,greeks1 all unified and harmonized 
in a way that makes it a sharp contrast 
to the fragmentary and abstract         
character of the ,hellenic theology4    
,christian doctrine represents to them  
the stable1 absolute truth1 so far as it
 was revealed by the ,incarnate ,word1  
the eternal verities in their           
completeness and unity1 so far as man is
 able to comprehend them4 ,philosophy   
represents the phase or aspect of the   
truth which the conditions of thought at

 the time demands and emphasizes1 which 
will co-ordinate the data at present in 
the foreground of consciousness4 ,thus  
they conceive of the facts of ,christian
 ,theology as the goal towards which    
philosophy is 7often unconsciously7     
striving1 but at which it can never     
arrive without the leap of faith4 ,once 
this leap is taken1 however1 these      
theological verities become the major   
factors in the data to be co-ordinated1 
and philosophy and theology come into   
that union and harmony which1 in the    
eyes of the ,christian philosophers1 is 
their normal relation4  ,this ,eclectic 
attitude of the ,fathers1 and their     
deprecation of any abstraction or       
partial statement usurping the place of 
the truth1 explains to some extent their
 treatment of the theistic argument4    
,in the first place it led them to      
distrust and reject any argument for the
 existence of ,god which proceeded on   
the basis of reason alone1 apart from   
any content furnished by sensibility4   

,while the ,fathers do not make any     
explicit and scientific distinction     
between ,epistemology and ,ontology1    
such as has in modern times been the    
bane of any attempted natural theology1 
yet they seem to have made a pretty     
constant practical separation between   
the two4 ,st4 ,clement of ,alexandria1  
as we have seen1 holds that by a method 
of abstraction of specific              
characteristics we can arrive only at an
 ,unknown1 to which meaning can be given
 only by combining with this rational   
process some content furnished directly 
by the senses or1 indirectly1 by        
testimony1 and he further states that   
,god is not a subject for               
demonstration--i4e41 the science that   
depends on primary and better known     
principles--for first principles are    
incapable of demonstration4#id ,this    
position seems to be tacitly assumed by 
the patristic writers throughout1 and   
even where they speak of ,plato with    
gratitude and admiration they never seem

 to be at all inclined to make any use  
of his ,idealogical argument or anything
 related thereto4 ,they seem to take a  
common-sense stand for the testimony of 
the whole man1 as well as for the whole 
truth1 and to instinctively distrust any
 rational concept in the formation of   
which sensuous content had been ignored4
  ,the ,eclectic character of the       
patristic thought is seen also in the   
frequency with which they use the       
different forms of the theistic argument
 in conjunction1 or present it in mixed 
forms4 ,the ,greek philosophers1 as we  
have seen1 each selected some one of the
 forms of the argument1 and by means of 
it1 attempted to establish the sort of  
an ,arch1 to which such a course of     
reasoning would lead1 ignoring1 or      
attacking the forms in use by their     
rival school4 ,thus early1 however1 as  
in modern times1 ,christian theology1 in
 contrast with the attempts of rational 
theology1 began to emphasize the        
interdependence of these different forms

 of the theistic argument1 and the      
cumulative character of their evidence4 
,each one of itself could bring no      
conviction1 nor even high degree of     
probability1 and furthermore1 even if   
all its claims be admitted1 would lead  
to a result far short of theism--a mere 
indefinite first cause1 an ,architect of
 the universe1 etc4 ,each one1 however1 
adds its quota to a great cumulative    
argument1 which1 taken in its entirety1 
raises an exceedingly high presumption1 
which amounts to moral though possibly  
not intellectual proof4 ,and1 after all1
 probability is the guide of life4  ,and
 this is all that the ,fathers1 or      
,christian apologists1 generally1 would 
claim for the theistic argument4 ,it is 
a practical1 not a theoretical proof1   
and it is in this way that the early    
,christian writers seem to regard it4   
,they resort to it most frequently to   
show that the ,christian doctrine of    
,god is not contrary to reason nor      
inconsistent with the nature of things1 

and to demonstrate that such a          
conception is demanded by man's very    
nature4 ,in a word1 their use of the    
argument is confirmatory and explanatory
 rather than by way of absolute proof   
and demonstration4  ,this attitude      
towards and use of the theistic         
argument1 so radically different from   
that of the ,greek philosophers1        
perpetuated itself in the post-,nicene  
literature of the ,christian ,church1   
and1 in its main features1 remained     
unaltered1 until the time when men who  
had abandoned the faith in the ,word    
which had been the main stay of the     
ante-,nicene writers1 and who yet were  
unwilling to abandon the great theistic 
idea for which the world was indebted to
 ,christianity alone1 sought to justify 
this idea on the basis of reason4 ,it   
took the scepticism of a ,hume and the  
criticism of a ,kant1 and the           
re-adjustment of all their followers to 
bring us back at the close of this      
nineteenth century into substantial     

agreement with the common-sense estimate
 placed upon the theistic argument by   
the ante-,nicene ,fathers4  ,,footnotes3
  #ib ,history of ,philosophy1 ,vol4 ,i1
  #d4  #ic ,burnet3 ,early ,greek       
,philosophy1 p4 #be4  #id ,stromata1    
,,ii1 iv4     ,,vita4   ,the writer was 
born ,april #bd1 #ahfi1 in ,ann ,arbor1 
,michigan4 ,he attended the ,ann ,arbor 
,public ,schools and the ,ann ,arbor    
,high ,school4 ,in #ahib he received the
 degree of ,a4 ,b4 from the ,university 
of ,michigan4 ,in #ahie he graduated    
from the ,general ,theological          
,seminary1 ,new ,york1 and was awarded  
the degree of ,b4 ,d41 which was        
formally conferred in accordance with   
the rules of the ,seminary one year     
later4 ,in #ahif1 he received the degree
 of ,a4 ,m4 from the ,university of     
,michigan4 ,he pursued studies in       
,philosophy at ,harvard ,university     
during the first term of the year       
#ahif-g1 and at ,columbia ,university   
from ,february1 #ahig1 to ,february1    

#ahih4 ,he has been the post-graduate   
scholar of the ,church ,university      
,board of ,regents from ,july1 #ahie1 to
 the present time4