A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth. The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all point forcibly to the fact that these things do not owe their existence to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.

Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of Him by whose Will these were created.

“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations. We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii. 9).

Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses. This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.

These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone sufficient to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks of scepticism?

On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation. Of this we shall speak later on.

The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.

1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.

A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the same way. A separate cause or god was therefore assumed for each, and people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.

2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity: there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man. Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable in relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God, contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are. If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner, and could not act otherwise.

3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to true religion, equal to atheism.

In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus the patriarch Abraham suspected the people of Gerar, that there was “no fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen. xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27). The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one; it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority. In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, ‏לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.

4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness, that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the Deity refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe, although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote, Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”

There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories. Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists, whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and rationalise it.