It is very important, in order that injustice may not be done to the Theistic argument, that we should have—in lieu of a clear definition, which it seems useless to ask for—the best possible clue to the meaning intended to be conveyed by the word “God.” If it were not that the word is an arbitrary term, maintained for the purpose of influencing the ignorant, and the notions suggested by which are vague and entirely contingent upon individual fancies, such a clue could probably be most easily and satisfactorily obtained by tracing back the word “God,” and ascertaining the sense in which it was used by the uneducated worshippers who have gone before us, and collating this with the more modern Theism, qualified as it is by the superior knowledge of to-day. Dupuis says: “Le mot _Dieu_ parait destiné à exprimer l’idee de la force universelle et éternellement active qui imprime le mouvement à tout dans la Nature, suivant les lois d’une harmonie constante et admirable, qui se développe dans les diverses formes que prend la matière organisée, qui se mèle à tout, anime tout, et qui semble être une dans ses modifications infiniment variées, et n’appartenir qu’à elle-même.” “The word God appears intended to express the universal and eternally active force which endows all nature with motion according to the laws of a constant and admirable harmony; which develops itself in the diverse forms of organised matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all; which seems to be one through all its infinitely varied modifications, and inheres in itself alone.” In the “Bon Sens” of Curé Meslier, it is asked: “Qu’est-ce que Dieu?” and the answer is: “C’est un mot abstrait fait pour désigner la force cachée de la nature; ou c’est un point mathématique qui n’a ni longueur, ni largeur, ni pro-fondeur.” “It is an abstract word coined to designate the hidden force of nature; or is it a mathematical point having neither length, breadth, nor depth.”