a　complete　and　self…centred　truth。　This　however　is　the　general　position　taken　by　the
  metaphysicians　before　Kant；　and　appears　in　their　cosmological　discussions；　which　for　that　reason
  were　incapable　of　compassing　their　purpose；　to　understand　the　phenomena　of　the　world。　Observe
  how　they　proceed　with　the　distinction　between　freedom　and　necessity；　in　their　application　of　these
  categories　to　Nature　and　Mind。　Nature　they　regard　as　subject　in　its　workings　to　necessity；　Mind
  they　hold　to　be　free。　No　doubt　there　is　a　real　foundation　for　this　distinction　in　the　very　core　of　the
  Mind　itself：　but　freedom　and　necessity；　when　thus　abstractly　opposed；　are　terms　applicable　only　in
  the　finite　world　to　which；　as　such；　they　belong。　A　freedom　involving　no　necessity；　and　mere
  necessity　without　freedom；　are　abstract　and　in　this　way　untrue　formulae　of　thought。　Freedom　is　no
  blank　indeterminateness：　essentially　concrete；　and　unvaryingly　self…determinate；　it　is　so　far　at　the
  same　time　necessary。　Necessity；　again；　in　the　ordinary　acceptation　of　the　term　in　popular
  philosophy；　means　determination　from　without　only　…　as　in　finite　mechanics；　where　a　body　moves
  only　when　it　is　struck　by　another　body；　and　moves　in　the　direction　communicated　to　it　by　the
  impact。　This　however　is　a　merely　external　necessity；　not　the　real　inward　necessity　which　is　identical
  with　freedom。
  The　case　is　similar　with　the　contrast　of　Good　and　Evil…the　favourite　contrast　of　the　introspective
  modern　world。　If　we　regard　Evil　as　possessing　a　fixity　of　its　own；　apart　and　distinct　from　Good；
  we　are　to　a　certain　extent　right：　there　is　an　opposition　between　them；　nor　do　those　who　maintain
  the　apparent　and　relative　character　of　the　opposition　mean　that　Evil　and　Good　in　the　Absolute　are
  one；　or；　in　accordance　with　the　modern　phrase；　that　a　thing　first　becomes　evil　from　our　way　of
  looking　at　it。　The　error　arises　when　we　take　Evil　as　a　permanent　positive；　instead　of…what　it　really
  is…a　negative　which；　though　it　would　fain　assert　itself；　has　no　real　persistence；　and　is；　in　fact；　only
  the　absolute　sham…existence　of　negativity　in　itself。
  §36
  The　fourth　branch　of　metaphysics　is　Natural　or　Rational　Theology。　The　notion　of
  God；　or　God　as　a　possible　being；　the　proofs；　of　his　existence；　and　his　properties；
  formed　the　study　of　this　branch。
  （a）　When　understanding　thus　discusses　the　Deity；　its　main　purpose　is　to　find　what
  predicates　correspond　or　not　to　the　fact　we　have　in　our　imagination　as　God。　And
  in　doing　it　assumes　the　contrast　between　positive　and　negative　to　be　absolute；　and
  hence；　in　the　long　run；　nothing　is　left　for　the　notion　as　understanding　takes　it；　but
  the　empty　abstraction　of　indeterminate　Being；　of　mere　reality　or　positivity；　the
  lifeless　product　of　modern　'Deism。'
  （b）　The　method　of　demonstration　employed　in　finite　knowledge　must　always　lead
  to　an　inversion　of　the　true　order。　For　it　requires　the　statement　of　some　objective
  ground　for　God's　being；　which　thus　acquires　the　appearance　of　being　derived
  from　something　else。　This　mode　of　proof；　guided　as　it　is　by　the　canon　of　mere
  analytical　identity；　is　embarrassed　by　the　difficulty　of　passing　from　the　finite　to
  the　infinite。　Either　the　finitude　of　the　existing　world；　which　is　left　as　much　a　fact
  as　it　was　before；　clings　to　the　notion　of　Deity；　and　God　has　to　be　defined　as　the
  immediate　substance　of　that　world…which　is　Pantheism：　or　he　remains　an　object
  set　over　against　the　subject；　and　in　this　way；　finite…which　is　Dualism。
  （c）　The　attributes　of　God　which　ought　to　be　various　and　precise　had；　properly
  speaking；　sunk　and　disappeared　in　the　abstract　notion　of　pure　reality；　of
  indeterminate　Being。　Yet　in　our　material　thought；　the　finite　world　continues；
  meanwhile；　to　have　a　real　being；　with　God　as　a　sort　of　antithesis：　and　thus　arises
  the　further　picture　of　different　relations　of　God　to　the　world。　These；　formulated
  as　properties；　must；　on　the　one　hand；　as　relations　to　finite　circumstances；
  themselves　possess　a　finite　character　（giving　us　such　properties　as　just；　gracious；
  mighty；　wise；　etc。）；　on　the　other　hand　they　must　be　infinite。　Now　on　this　level　of
  thought　the　only　means；　and　a　hazy　one；　of　reconciling　these　opposing
  requirements　was　quantitative　exaltation　of　the　properties；　forming　them　into
  indeterminateness…into　the　sensus　eminentior。　But　it　was　an　expedient　which
  really　destroyed　the　property　and　left　a　mere　name。
  §36n
  The　object　of　the　old　metaphysical　theology　was　to　see　how　far　unassisted　reason　could　go　in　the
  knowledge　of　God。　Certainly　a　reason　derived　knowledge　of　God　is　the　highest　problem　of
  philosophy。　The　earliest　teachings　of　religion　are　figurate　conceptions　of　God。　These　conceptions；
  as　the　Creed　arranges　them；　are　imparted　to　us　in　youth。　They　are　the　doctrines　of　our　religion；
  and　in　so　far　as　the　individual　rests　his　faith　on　these　doctrines　and　feels　them　to　be　the　truth；　he
  has　all　he　needs　as　a　Christian。　Such　is　faith：　and　the　science　of　this　faith　is　Theology。　But　until
  Theology　is　something　more　than　a　bare　enumeration　and　compilation　of　these　doctrines　ab　extra；
  it　has　no　right　to　the　title　of　science。　Even　the　method　so　much　in　vogue　at　present…the　purely
  historical　mode　of　treatment…which　for　example　reports　what　has　been　said　by　this　or　the　other
  Father　of　the　Church…does　not　invest　theology　with　a　scientific　character。　To　get　that；　we　must　go
  on　to　comprehend　the　facts　by　thought…which　is　the　business　of　philosophy。　Genuine　theology　is
  thus　at　the　same　time　a　real　philosophy　of　religion；　as　it　was；　we　may　add；　in　the　Middle　Ages。
  And　now　let　us　examine　this　rational　theology　more　narrowly。　It　was　a　science　which　approached
  God　not　by　reason　but　by　understanding；　and；　in　its　mode　of　thought；　employed　the　terms　without
  any　sense　of　their　mutual　limitations　and　connections。　The　notion　of　God　formed　the　subject　of
  discussion；　and　yet　the　criterion　of　our　knowledge　was　derived　from　such　an　extraneous　source　as
  the　materialised　conception　of　God。　Now　thought　must　be　free　in　its　movements。　It　is　no　doubt　to
  be　remembered　that　the　result　of　independent　thought　harmonises　with　the　import　of　the　Christian
  religion：　for　the　Christian　religion　is　a　revelation　of　reason。　But　such　a　harmony　surpassed　the
  efforts　of　rational　theology。　It　proposed　to　define　the　figurate　conception　of　God　in　terms　of
  thought；　but　it　resulted　in　a　notion　of　God　which　was　what　we　may　call　the　abstract　of　positivity　or
  reality；　to　the　exclusion　of　all　negation。　God　was　accordingly　defined　to　be　the　most　real　of　all
  beings。　Anyone　can　see　however　that　this　most　real　of　beings；　in　which　negation　forms　no　part；　is
  the　very　opposite　of　what　it　ought　to　be　and　of　what　understanding　supposes　it　to　be。　Instead　of
  being　rich　and　full　above　all　measure；　it　is　so　narrowly　conceived　that　it　is；　on　the　contrary；
  extremely　poor　and　altogether　empty。　It　is　with　reason　that　the　heart　craves　a　concrete　body　of
  truth；　but　without　definite　feature；　that　is；　without　negation；　contained　in　the　notion；　there　can　only
  be　an　abstraction。　When　the　notion　of　God　is　apprehended　only　as　that　of　the　abstract　or　most
  real　being；　God　is；　as　it　were；　relegated　to　another　world　beyond：　and　to　speak　of　a　knowledge　of
  him　would　be　meaningless。　Where　there　is　no　definite　quality；　knowledge　is　impossible。　Mere　light
  is　mere　darkness。
  The　second　problem　of　rational　theology　was　to　prove　the　existence　of　God。　Now；　in　this　matter；
  the　main　point　to　be　noted　is　that　demonstration；　as　the　understanding　employs　it；　means　the
  dependence　of　one　truth　on　another。　In　such　proofs　we　have　a　presupposition…something　firm　and
  fast；　from　which　something　else　follows；　we　exhibit　the　dependence　of　some　truth　from　an
  assumed　starting…point。　Hence；　if　this　mode　of　demonstration　is　applied　to　the　existence　of　God；　it
  can　only　mean　that　the　being　of　God　is　to　depend　on　other　terms；　which　will　then　constitute　the
  ground　of　his　being。　It　is　at　once　evident　that　this　will　lead　to　some　mistake：　for　God　must　be
  simply　and　solely　the　ground　of　everything；　and　in　so　far　not　dependent　upon　anything　else。　And　a
  perception　of　this　danger　has　in　modern　times　led　some　to　say　that　God's　existence　is　not　capable
  of　proof；　but　must　be　immediately　or　intuitively　apprehended。　Reason；　however；　and　even　sound
  common　sense　give　demonstration　a　meaning　quite　different　from　that　of　the　understanding。　The
  demonstration　of　reason　no　doubt　starts　from　something　which　is　not　God。　But；　as　it　advances；　it
  does　not　leave　the　starting…point　a　mere　unexplained　fact；　which　is　what　it　was。　On　the　contrary　it
  exhibits　that　point　as　derivative　and　called　into　being；　and　then　God　is　seen　to　be　primary；　truly
  immediate；　and　self…subsisting；　with　the　means　of　derivation　wrapped　up　and　absorbed　in　himself。
  Those　who　say：　'Consider　Nature；　and　Nature　will　lead　you　to　God；　you　will　find　an　absolute　final
  cause'　do　not　mean　that　God　is　something　derivative：　they　mean　that　it　is　we　who　proceed　to　God
  himself　from　another；　and　in　this　way　God；　though　the　consequence；　is　also　the　absolute　ground　of
  the　initial　step。　The　relation　of　the　two　things　is　reverse