¹ Not by everybody, of course; the distinction is clearly drawn by Tennant, in Philosophical Theology and is adopted by Professor Farmer in his Gifford Lectures Revelation and Religion (London 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} “If the cause be known only by the effect, we never ought to ascribe to it any qualities, beyond what are precisely requisite to produce the effect.” Hume,Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, SelbyBigge's edition, p. 136.

^{page 221 note 1} Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Kemp Smith's edition, p. 201. The view that there is “a principle of order” in things is not the same as the naive view that things “just are” ordered. But I have found it convenient to treat them here as if they were the same.

^{page 221 note 2} Dialogues, p.169.

^{page 222 note 1} Enquiry xi; Dialogues, Part ii.

^{page 222 note 2} Enquiry, p. 148.

^{page 224 note 1} It is, incidentally, unfair to criticize the natural theologian (or the rationalistic theologian) for purporting to prove by argument what he already believes by faith. What is wrong with this? He is not trying to prove God's existence to himself; he is trying to prove it for other people; though it may well be that, as a practical point, such a “proof” is only likely to seem cogent to someone who shares, though it may be in only the vaguest way, his faith. Mention of vagueness prompts me to say that I think the value of the “proofs” lies ultimately in the help they afford to us towards getting clear the idea of God.