wliich is incapable of all relation, then it must be alone ; nothing but the Absolute can be actual or possible. Then it can neither know nor be known. And if the Infinite be all, then again there can be no finite. Then it is just as certain that the Absolute and Infinite cannot be cause, or conscious, or a person, as that a square cannot be a circle, or the whole a part of itself. When a defini- tion leads to contradictions and absurdities, when it leads to con- clusions which are inconsistent with the laws of our nature, and when it subverts all that consciousness, common sense, and the Bible declare to be true, the only rational inference is that the definition is wrong. This inference we have the right to draw in the present case. The very fact that the definitions of the Abso- lute and Infinite which Hamilton and Mansel have adopted from the transcendentalists, lead to all the feai'ful conclusions which they draw from them, is proof enough that they must be wrong. They are founded upon purely speculative d priori grounds. * They can have no authority. For if, as these philosophers say, the Ab- solute and Infinite cannot be known, how can it be defined? Nei- ther the etymology nor the usage of the words in question justifies the above given definitions of them. Absolute {ah and solvo) means, free, unrestrained, independent ; as when we speak of an absolute monarch or absolute promise ; or, unlimited, as when we speak of absolute space. The word is also used in the sense of finished, or perfect. An absolute being is one that is free, unlimited, inde- pendent, and perfect. God is absolute, because He is not depend- ent for his existence, nature, attributes, or acts, on any other being. He is unlimited, by anything out of Himself or independent of his will. But this does not imply that He is the only being ; nor that in order to be absolute He must be dead, unconscious, or without thought or will. Much less does the word infinite, as applied to God, imply that He must include all forms of being. Space may be infinite without being duration, and duration m^j be infinite without being space. An infinite spirit does not include material forms of existence, any more than an infinite line is an infinite sur- face or an infinite solid. When it is said that anything is infinite, all that is propei'ly meant is that no limit is assignable or possible to it as such. An infinite line is that to which no limit can be assigned as a line ; infinite space is that to which no limit can be assigned as space ; an infinite spirit is a spirit which is unlimited in all the attributes of a spirit. It is a great mistake to assume that the infinite must be all. Infinite power is not all power, but simply power to whose efficiency no limitation can be assigned ;
658 PART I. — THEOLOGY. [Ch. IV. — Can God be known ?
and infinite knowledge is not all knowledge, but simply knowledge to the extent of which no limit is possible. So too an infinite sub- stance is not all substance, but a substance which is not excluded from any portion of space by other substances, or limited in the manifestation of any of its attributes or functions by anything out of itself. God, therefore, may be a Spirit infinite, eternal, and im- mutable in his being and perfections, without being matter, and sin, and misery.
It may be said that as infinite space must include all space, so an infinite being must of necessity include all modes of being. This, however, is a mere play on words. Infinite is sometimes inclusive of all, not from the meaning of the word, but from the nature of the subject of which infinitude is predicated. Infinite space must include all space, because space is in its nature one. But an infinite line does not include all lines, because there may be any number of lines ; and an infinite being is not all being, because there may be any number of beings.
It must excite the wonder and indignation of ordinary men to see the fundamental truths of religion and morality endangered or subverted out of deference to the assumption that the Absolute must be unrelated.
Wrong Definition of Knowledge. 2. The second fallacy involved in Hamilton's theory concerns his idea of knowledge. When it is said that God is unknowable, everything depends on what is meant by knowledge. With him to know is to understand, to have a distinct conception, or mental image. This is evident from his using interchangeably the words unthinkable, unknowable, and inconceivable. Thus on a single page 1 Mansel uses the phrases that of which " we do not and can- not think," that " which we cannot conceive," and " that which •we are unable to comprehend," as meaning one and the same thing. This is also proved from the manner in which other words and phrases are employed; for example, the Infinite, the Absolute, an absolute beginning, an absolute whole, an absolute part, any increase or diminution of the complement of being. The only sense, however, in which these things are unthinkable, is, that we cannot form a mental image of them. A distinguished German professor, ■when anything was said to which he could not assent, was accus- tomed to spread out his hands and close his eyes and say, " Ich kann gar keine Anschauung davon machen." I cannot see it with
1 Page 110.