Page:(1856) Scottish Philosophy—The Old and the New.pdf/38

38 of sophistry, can be twisted into even the remotest insinuation that I regard the proof of revelation or the argument from effect to cause as defective. But it certainly seemed to me that the basis of belief would be strengthened, if the theistic conclusion could be shown to be forced out,—even when not sought for,—by the inevitable necessities of thinking.

Before concluding my examination of these six results, have just one remark to add in reference to my theology, as represented by Mr Cairns. He says, "This Deity is not independent; for the universe in the synthesis of self and not self—on the whole principles of this system—is as necessary to Him, as He to it—not certainly in a material form, but in some form which constitutes an eternal but varying non-ego or particular element, in his consciousness." I answer, yes—it is quite true, that according to my system, the Deity is not independent of His own creative power, wisdom, or goodness, or of any of His other attributes these and His works, when He chooses to execute them, co-exist along with Him. That is my doctrine. But observe the animus of this charitable ecclesiastic: he would fain insinuate that my system makes the Deity to be necessarily bound up with some such universe as that which we behold. This is more than insinuated, for he remarks in a note, "a correction will be cheerfully accepted of this representation, if Professor Ferrier means, by the variable element in the Divine mind, only the thoughts of Deity." I hope that some of my other observations in the course of this pamphlet may contribute to Mr Cairns' hilarity, for, on this point, I am sorry that I can add nothing to his cheerfulness—no correction being possible, where no correction is required. I have stated every where throughout the Institutes, that by the variable element in the Divine mind, I mean the thoughts of the Deity, whatever these may be—for this I do not presume to determine. In reference to this topic, Mr Cairns asserts, "The Deity could not know these thoughts to be His own"—I ask, why not?—for Mr Cairns has not added one word in explanation of this strange averment.

It would be easy to follow Mr Cairns into some further details, and to expose with equal clearness the misrepresentations and