niscient, and perfect being must exist, because infinity,
immutability, omniscience, and perfection are applied as correlatives in
my ideas of finitude, change, etc. God therefore exists: his existence
is clearly proclaimed in my consciousness, and therefore ceases to be
a matter of doubt any more than the fact of my own existence. The
conception of an infinite being proved his real existence, for if there
is not really such a being I must have made the conception; but if
I could make it I can also unmake it, which evidently is not true;
therefore there must be externally to myself, an archetype from which
the conception was derived.".... "All that we clearly and distinctly
conceive as contained in anything is true of that thing."

"Now, we conceive clearly and distinctly that the existence of God is
contained in the idea we have of him: ergo--God exists."--(_Lewes's Bio.
Hist. Phil._)

Des Cartes was of opinion that his demonstrations of the existence of
God "equal or even surpass in certitude the demonstrations of geometry."
In this opinion we must confess we cannot share. He has already told
us that the basis of all certitude is consciousness--that whatever
is clearly and distinctly conceived, must be true--that imperfect and
complex conceptions are false ones. The first proposition, all must
admit, is applicable to themselves. I conceive a fact clearly and
distinctly, and, despite all resistance, am compelled to accept that
fact; and if that fact be accepted beyond doubt, no higher degree of
certainty can be attained, That two and two are four--that I exist--are
facts which I never doubt. The _Cogito ergo Sum_ is irresistible,
because indubitable; but _Cogito ergo Deus est_ is a sentence requiring
much consideration, and upon the face of it is no syllogism, but, on the
contrary, is illogical. If Des Cartes meant "I" am conscious that I am
not the whole of existence, he would be indisputable; but if he meant
that "I" can be conscious of an existence entirely distinct, apart from,
and external to, that very consciousness, then his whole reasoning from
that point appears fallacious.

We use the word "I" as given by Des Cartes. Mill, in his "System of
Logic," says, "The ambiguity in this case is in the pronoun I, by which
in one place is to be understood _my will_: in another _the laws of
my nature_. If the conception, existing as it does in my mind, had no
original without, the conclusion would unquestionably follow