And hence Buddaeus and other divines have carefully distinguished between the radical principles or grounds of Atheism, and those opinions which are often, but not invariably, associated with it.[4] But it is equally or still more dangerous, on the other hand, to admit a mere nominal recognition of God as a sufficient disproof of Atheism, without inquiring what conception is entertained of His nature and perfections; whether He be conceived of as different from, or identical with, Nature; as a living, personal, and intelligent Being, distinct from the universe, or as the mere sum of existing things; as a free Creator and Moral Governor, or as a blind Destiny and inexorable Fate.
These are vital questions, and they cannot be evaded without serious detriment to the cause of religion.

A few examples will suffice to prove our assertion.

M.Cousin contends that _Atheism is impossible_, and assigns no other reason for his conviction than this,--that the existence of God is necessarily implied in every affirmation, and may be logically deduced from the premises on which that affirmation depends.[5] His reasoning may possibly be quite conclusive _in point of logic_, in so far as it is an attempt to show that the existence of God _ought_ to be deduced from the consciousness of thought; but it cannot be held conclusive as to _the matter of fact_, that there is no Atheism in the world, unless it can be further shown that all men know and acknowledge His existence as a truth involved in, and deducible from, their conscious experience.

Yet he does not hesitate to affirm that "every thought implies a spontaneous faith in God;" nay, he advances further, and adds that even when the sage "denies the existence of God, still his words imply the idea of God, and that belief in God remains unconsciously at the bottom of his heart." Surely the denial or the doubt of God's existence amounts to Atheism, however inconsistent that Atheism may be with the natural laws of thought, or the legitimate exercise of speech.
Yet the bold paradox of COUSIN was neither an original discovery nor an unprecedented delusion.

It was taught, in a different form, but with equal confidence, by several writers belonging to the era of the first French Revolution.