Chapter V. The Antecedent Improbability of Miracles.—The Unknown and Unknowable God.

Chapter V. The Antecedent Improbability of Miracles.—The Unknown and Unknowable God.The proof onà priorigrounds that an event is either possible or probable, cannot establish that it has actually occurred. This must rest on its own particular evidence. To prove that a revelation is both possible and probable, and that it ought to be evidenced by miracles, may form an essential portion of our general argument, because the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular fact affects the amount of positive evidence necessary to establish its truth. But the proof that a revelation has actually been given, or a miracle wrought, can only be effected through the same media as those through which other facts are established. To prove that a revelation is probable will not be of the smallest avail to prove that one has been actually given, without adequate proof of the fact itself.Still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important, because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible. If this can be demonstrated, the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers; for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible. It[pg 096]may be assumed, however, that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings; because, after having demonstrated, as they allege, that miracles are impossible, they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the Gospels, and pronounce it worthless. As, therefore, the opponents of Christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible, it is necessary that the defender of Christianity should examine the validity of the assertion.Our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle, or assuming the fact which ought to be proved. To avoid even the appearance of this, I lay down the following positions:—If direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the Universe, it follows that a divine revelation is impossible. Nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so, because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature, but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will. With the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible, because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena, the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past. Still the occurrence of a fact, however extraordinary, would not constitute a miracle, and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe, or the predominance of chance.The same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no God exists, but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one.Nor is the case altogether different with regard to[pg 097]pantheism. According to this system, God is only another name for nature, which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious self-evolution. The essence of its affirmation is, that God has no conscious personal existence, but that He is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe. Such a being (if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all, or as a unity) is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena, the result of the blind action of its inherent forces. But to whom? Obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness, whom it (I dare not say, He) has evolved out of its own bosom, and will again resolve into unconsciousness. Prior to their evolution this mighty τὸ πᾶν must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself, without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them. Whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view, it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe, a revelation and miracles, in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning, are impossible.No less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by Mr. Herbert Spencer, which, while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things, as alike required by the demands of philosophy, science, and religion, yet affirms that He is unknown and unknowable, and that every thing which is knowable, although a manifestation of that great unknown cause, yet conveys no idea of Him that the intellect can apprehend. In one word, the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable, and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought. The intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things; but all that it can affirm of him is, that He is unknown and unknowable;[pg 098]and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge, though it may represent some mode of his existence, cannot be he, or like him. With respect to this theory, while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism, it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing God out of the universe, of which He is alleged to be the cause. He can neither be a person, nor have wisdom, nor be benevolent, nor be capable of conscious self-manifestation; because all these conceptions are limited and finite. All that we can know of Him is, that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena; and that we are condemned respecting Him, to a profound and perpetual ignorance. It is possible to designate such a being by the name of God, but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it. Such a God is a bare abstract conception of the intellect, void of all moral value. It is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself. Consequently St. Paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown God at Athens,“Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you”(Acts xvii. 23), is untrue. To such a God a revelation of Himself, and miracles to confirm it, are alike impossible.It is evident, therefore, that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things, all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless. Let us take the most favourable hypothesis, that of Mr. Spencer. It concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things, which may be called God. But He is unknowable; He is inscrutable. No conception of[pg 099]Him can be realized in thought; it follows, therefore, that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man, for if a revelation of Him could be made, He cannot be unknowable. This being so, the person who attempts to reason out the truth of Christianity is placed under a difficulty. Christianity assumes the existence of a personal God, possessed of moral attributes. This is the very truth, the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting. The Christian advocate, therefore, has only two courses before him: First, To assume, in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind, that a personal God exists; and then to argue for the truth of Christianity, and to answer the objections urged against it. When we do this, objectors affirm that we beg the question. Or, Secondly, To prove the existence of a personal God; and then to argue for the truth of revelation. If he adopts the latter course, he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests, and to answer the objections to it—or, in other words, to compose a bulky volume, before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry.Now I affirm that the defender of Christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal God as the foundation of his reasonings, than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is, who takes for granted the truth of Euclid's propositions.The author of the work to which I have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of Christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions. I will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject, but I trust I shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded. I must briefly notice a few of his reasonings.[pg 100]At page 68 he writes as follows:“Dr. Mozley is well aware that the assumption of a‘personal’God is not susceptible of proof; indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption.”An assumption, I ask, in what sense? Is it a simple assumption without evidence, taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument; or is it one which, though taken for granted in the present case, rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established, and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of Euclid do to those of trigonometry? The latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former. Without referring to the authority of any particular author, is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a Personal God rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason? Have not numbers of men, endowed with the highest powers of intellect, accepted it as satisfactory? Yet he seeks to imply that, after all, it is an assumption. It is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted; but we do so, because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason.I admit that Dr. Mozley has used, in speaking of this subject, language which I cannot but think is wanting in precision. Still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it.“It is then to be admitted,”says he,“that historically, and looking to the general actual reception of it, this conception of God was derived from revelation. Not from the first dawn of history to the spread of Christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a Being.”The learned author then states, at considerable length, the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of God, and shows their inadequacy and[pg 101]imperfection, and concludes as follows:“But although this conception of the Deity has been received through the channel of the Bible, what communicates a truth is one thing, what proves it is another.”He then proceeds to summarize the general proof.I cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity. Whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied, there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of God, though indefinite and indistinct, underlay them all. The most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a Supreme God above all the degraded objects of his worship. It seems to me impossible that such a conception of God can have been attained from revelation. It may, in a certain sense, be said, looking at the precise form in which it is embodied, that it has been derived by us historically from the Jewish race. But it must have had a prior origin. St. Paul considered that the material universe manifested His eternal power and Godhead. The primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of God. It is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the Bible. It is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the Bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge, but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof, and whose only basis is conjecture. Judaism and Christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the Deity and dissipating false ones. Yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly, no formal revelation could have put it there, for every such revelation must be conveyed in language, and all language is meaningless, unless the mind can realize its conceptions. The assertion,[pg 102]therefore, that the conception of God has been first communicated through the channel of the Bible, and is afterwards proved by reason, seems to me to be one not devoid of danger. On the contrary, our belief that God exists is the very pre-condition of our being able to believe that He has revealed Himself. This conception revelation may modify, invest with a higher moral character, and import into it definiteness and precision, but it cannot create it. It is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of Christianity in a vicious circle. I fully admit that the conception of God has been elevated and purified by the influence of Christianity, and that the teaching of Christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason. But it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle, and that the Christian argument involves reasoning from Theism to Christianity and from Christianity back to Theism.The following passage, cited by Professor Mozley from Baden Powell, is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation, and from revelation to reason. The passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge, and requires our careful consideration.“Everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God; but in acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature a mind, a universal mind, but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. Nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a[pg 103]universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing; and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And therefore that conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature, to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere. That conception is attained from revelation, which is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism.”It will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage.First: The author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces, laws, and phenomena of the physical universe, and for these alone. To this I have no objection, for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning. But while he uses it thus, he nowhere tells us in what relation man, including his faculties, intellectual and moral, and above all, his will, stands to nature. Are they included in, or excluded from it? Do they, or do they not, form a part of it? If they are included in nature, then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a God, beyond those on which the author reasons. If they are excluded, then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion. Our reasonings respecting God are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature, but on man, his reason, his conscience, and his will. What makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man, as well as the forces and laws of the material universe.[pg 104]As far as the physical universe is concerned, the mind infers the existence of a God from its order and its harmonies; that is to say, having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation, and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source, we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves. Such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only, but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own self-conscious being. But the intelligence which produces order, as far as we are cognisant of it, is invariably united with will. We therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature, not simply the conception of a God, such as the God of pantheism; but, if they are valid to prove anything at all, of a God who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order, and of purpose adequate for its production. If the inference of the existence of a God from the works of nature is valid, it must be of a God possessed of the attributes in question, for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason.It is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law; that is to say, we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation. But WE, that is the reasoning, rational beings, whether existing in nature or outside it, have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind, and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will. If our reasoning from the order of the material universe is[pg 105]valid to prove the presence of mind, which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves, it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition, for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes. The material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind; but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one. But if our minds form part of nature, then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe. If they are outside nature, then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature,i.e.above the physical forces of the universe. It follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will, exist within nature or without it, a God who possesses similar powers may exist also.In a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature,i.e.matter and its phenomena, only informs us of the presence of mind in nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. But let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement. We learn the presence of mind, not from material nature, but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote. This is overlooked in the above argument. It is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance, we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature. In fact we do not see mind at all, but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason; and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind.The writer before me is one of those who affirm that[pg 106]the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature, in which he includes every species of vital organism, is the presence of order and harmony; and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation, contrivance and design is invalid. I reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind. But we also observe in natural phenomena, and above all in animal and vegetable structures, that the results effected are produced, not by simple forces, but by the careful adjustment of many, or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another, and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place. Had any of these occurred otherwise, the result would have been different. Throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result. This we usually designate by the word“adaptation.”Adaptation implies intelligence and purpose. We are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature, as any other quality whatever, even the possession of mind.I fully concede that natural phenomena and even the phenomena of the mind of man, only testify directly to the existence of a power adequate to their production, and that we cannot directly infer from them the presence of omnipotence. But this is to quarrel about words. For the power manifested in nature and in man is so great that the human mind can make no distinction between it and omnipotence; or in other words, it justly infers from its manifestations that the power which could originate this universe and all things in it must be capable of effecting anything which is possible.[pg 107]To this mind, whether in or out of nature, our reason ascribes the attributes of intelligence and will. Such a power it is incapable of conceiving as inherent in material forces; it therefore assumes that this power exists outside nature, and is capable of controlling it.It follows therefore that the reasoning is fallacious, which asserts that the conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception which we must seek from revelation, and cannot be arrived at by any exertion of our rational powers on the facts of nature and of man. Its apparent plausibility has arisen solely from ignoring the presence of man, either in nature or outside it, and neglecting to take the facts of human nature, man's reason, conscience and will, into consideration. To affirm that, independently of man's moral and intellectual being, physical nature, its forces and laws, can prove nothing, is a simple platitude. We have not to go to revelation for the principles on which we reason, but to man, and the phenomena of his rational, self-conscious, and voluntary agency. It follows, therefore, that the affirmation that in conducting the Christian argument we reason from God to miracles and from miracles to God, is utterly disproved. Yet the writer before me has ventured to affirm that, when we commence with the being of a personal God as the groundwork of our reasonings, we begin and end with a bare assumption.The philosophical writings of Dr. Mansel are also pressed into the service for the purpose of discrediting the evidences of Christianity, and, I own, with considerably greater reason. Mr. Herbert Spencer has also invoked them in confirmation of his theory that God is unknown and unknowable. He refers to them[pg 108]in the following words:“Here I cannot do better than avail myself of the demonstration which Mr. Mansel, carrying out in detail the doctrine of Sir W. Hamilton, has given us in his‘Limits of Religious Thought.’And I gladly do this, not only because his mode of presentation cannot be improved, but because writing as he does in defence of current theology, his reasonings will be more acceptable to the majority of readers.”Before referring to Dr. Mansel as an unquestionable authority on this subject, it would only have been candid in both writers to have informed their readers that not only have his principles been repudiated by a considerable number of Christian writers as unsound, but they have been carefully examined by that eminent atheistic philosopher, Mr. Mill, who gives it as his deliberate opinion that they are founded on fallacious principles. It is absurd to urge principles, though they have been maintained by an eminent Christian writer, which an eminent unbeliever has pronounced unsound, as a clear and conclusive argument against Christianity.The work of Dr. Mansel may be described as an attempt to prove the truth of Christianity on the principles of the most sceptical philosophy. It may be briefly stated thus: Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God as He is, whether as the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause. All the conceptions which we can frame on the subject are mutually self-destructive. On similar principles our conceptions of His moral attributes are wholly inadequate to inform us of His real perfections. It by no means follows that our human conception of benevolence or justice is a measure of the divine benevolence, or of divine justice; and so of His other attributes. It is affirmed that because they[pg 109]are the attributes of an infinite Being, they lie beyond the possibility of being realized in human thought. Consequently, holiness in God may admit of very different manifestations from holiness in man. Upon these principles, which affirm the inadequacy of the human intellect, even to conceive of anything as it exists in God, it follows that our only possible conceptions of God are relative; or, to use the word chosen by the author in relation to Christianity, regulative;i.e.fitted to regulate our conduct, but not to illuminate our understanding.Upon the assumption that reason, when it attempts to analyse our ideas of the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause, lands us in hopeless contradictions, Dr. Mansel arrives at the conclusion that it is incapable of forming any conception of God as he actually exists. It follows as a necessary consequence from this, that even by revelation we are only capable of attaining relative ideas of Him, and that these relative ideas do not represent His real nature, but are only regulative of conduct,i.e.we are to act upon them as if they were true.E.g.God is revealed as holy. Our only conception of holiness is our human conception of it. But we cannot know that this is an adequate measure of the divine holiness. God is declared to be benevolent. We have no conception of benevolence but that which is derived from the human mind. So likewise with respect to justice. But benevolence and justice as they exist in God may differ from these qualities as they exist in man. The same thing follows as a necessary conclusion from Dr. Mansel's premises with respect to all the other attributes of God. Nothing will better illustrate the position to which this argument reduces us than to apply it to the truthfulness or veracity of God. All that we know about truthfulness[pg 110]is as it exists in finite beings, that is, in men. But God is an infinite being. It follows therefore that truthfulness in man is no adequate representation of truthfulness as it exists in God, that is to say, that the divine veracity may differ from our human conception of it. This is certainly a very startling position.If, therefore, these principles are correct, acquiescence on the part of man in the divine character is impossible. It is impossible to love a being who does not present to us the aspect of loveliness; or to reverence one who does not present to us an aspect capable of exciting this emotion; or to feel trust in a being of whose justice we have no certainty that it resembles our conception of justice; or to rely on the promises of one whose veracity may differ from our own. Such feelings cannot be made to order. They can only be generated by the contemplation of a being who is holy, benevolent, just, and true, in the ordinary acceptation of these words. They cannot be excited by any merely regulative ideas. We love, reverence, and trust, not ideas or conceptions, but persons, possessing moral attributes. But on the principle of merely regulative ideas of God, the assertion that“God is love,”loses all its value, if God is not what I mean by love, but, because he is infinite, he may be something else, I know not what; and thus the great precept of the moral law,“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength,”becomes meaningless. Such devotion of our entire nature cannot be created by the mere command to render it. It can only be rendered to a being whose claims over us we both feel and know to be an absolute reality, and to whom on the conviction of their reality we can offer ourselves up a voluntary sacrifice. But if we cannot know Him as He is, how is the fire of devotion to Him[pg 111]to be kindled in our hearts? How shall we trust in Him? How shall we acquiesce in His character? How shall we worship Him, how shall we adore Him, if it is true that the justice, benevolence, or holiness of the divine character may not resemble our conception of them? Nay, more: the theory in question lays the axe to the root of the Christian revelation itself. There is no affirmation of the New Testament more decisive than that Jesus Christ in His divine and human personality is the image of the invisible God, as far as His moral perfections are concerned. Are the perfections of the character of Jesus Christ only regulative, or are they real representations of these attributes as they exist in God? Are the divine attributes of holiness, benevolence, or justice, adequately represented by the manifestations of them, as made by Jesus Christ? If we accept the testimony of St. John's Gospel, our Lord himself has expressly affirmed,“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”(John xiv. 9). But this is impossible if our conceptions of God's moral attributes are only regulative, and if the human idea of holiness is no adequate representation of the divine.However erroneous a system may be, yet if it has been elaborated by a powerful mind, it has generally some foundation in reason, and I am far from affirming that, with considerable qualifications, some important elements of truth may not be found in that of Dr. Mansel. It is well that we should be made to feel that there are limits of thought beyond which the human mind cannot penetrate, and that there are profundities of metaphysics which an imperfect measuring-line cannot reach. But placing the matter as he has, the Christian apologist may well feel indebted to Mr. Mill for his crushing demolition of the dangerous portions of Dr. Mansel's system. When unbelievers quote the[pg 112]authority of Dr. Mansel, why do they not also tell their readers that there was at least one unbeliever of very high logical power, who wrote against the validity of his system.It is one thing to affirm that we cannot penetrate to the depths of the Deity, and that after we have raised our thoughts to the highest, there is something higher still; and quite another to affirm that our highest thoughts of him have no validity; or, to use the terms of a fashionable philosophy, that God is unknown and unknowable, that no true conception of Him can be formed in thought; in one word, that he is absolutely unthinkable. The difficulties of this subject have arisen mainly from discussing it in terms of pure abstractions, instead of embodying them in a concrete form. It is impossible in this place to enter on the profound depths involved in these questions; but a few observations will be necessary for the purpose of clearing away the difficulties in which our opponents seek to involve the subject of miracles. I shall confine myself to our conceptions of the Infinite.It is affirmed that no conception of the infinite can be framed in thought; that it is therefore unthinkable, and transcends the limits of human knowledge; that it is a negation; and that therefore our reason is unable to affirm anything respecting it; that the idea of personality is incompatible with that of infinity; and that therefore when we speak of God as a person who possesses infinite perfections, we enter on a region where human thought is invalid, and respecting which all affirmation involves a contradiction.But when we are told that the infinite transcends thought, we are entitled to demand that we should not be kept playing with an abstraction, and to ask, what is infinite? In what sense does it transcend thought?[pg 113]Does this mean that it is absolutely unthinkable; or only partially so; or that our conception of it is imperfect? Is it simply unknowable, or does it consist of something which we know,plussomething that has not come within the limits of our knowledge, but which something is of a similar character to the known? It will be at once seen that the determination of these questions is at the root of the whole controversy. If then by the infinite we mean something knownplussomething unknown, to speak of God as unknowable and unthinkable is absurd. Our knowledge of Him may not be full, but yet real so far as it goes. When it is affirmed that God is a being who exists, but is unthinkable by man, the effect is to place Him beyond the bounds of human knowledge, and thereby free us from all necessity of troubling ourselves about Him. We know that He exists in the profundities of the unknown; and that is all. For the purposes of thought and of morality, He is thus made of less value than an algebraicx.When it is affirmed that the infinite is unknowable, I again ask, what infinite? The infinite as an abstract idea has no real existence; but something that is infinite. The conception itself is an essentially quantitative conception, and is only strictly applicable to number and extension. When I speak therefore of an infinite number, what do I mean? The only answer possible is,“The greatest number I can conceive,plusall possible number without limit.”Does my adding on the latter factor invalidate the reality of my conception of the former? Is that which is added on anything else than number? Surely here I have a valid conception. The same is true when we speak of the infinity of space. I mean by it the greatest space I can conceive,plusspace without limit. Is the idea of space[pg 114]rendered unthinkable, because I add the conception of space without limit? Does it cease to be space? But space is conceivable. It follows therefore that neither infinite number nor infinite extension is absolutely unthinkable. We speak of the infinite divisibility of matter. Does matter, because it goes on to be divided for ever, cease to be matter?In the same manner we speak of God, and call Him infinite. It would be far more correct to speak of Him as a Being who has infinite attributes. Here, however, if accuracy of thought is to be preserved, a distinction must be made. Some attributes of God may be viewed as quantitative; others cannot. It is to the former only that the term infinite properly applies. A moral attribute cannot have a quantitative measure applied to it. It is therefore not infinite, but perfect.When we speak of God as a being possessed of infinite power, what do we mean? The thing intended is, that He is a being who possesses such power as enabled Him to create the universe, and that He is capable of exerting every other degree of power which is possible. We may call this, if we like, power without limit; though there is always one limit to possible power, viz., that of working contradictions. Of course we are ignorant of what are the limits of possible power.But when we make this addition to our finite conception, we mean by it power similar to that exhibited in the universe—it and all other power beyond it. Must such a conception be banished outside the limits of rational thought? Is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to build the universe, and all possible power besides, unthinkable? Again, we speak of God as infinitely wise. What do we mean by it? We affirm that He knows all things actual and possible.[pg 115]The knowledge is none the less knowledge, because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge of the possible. Such a being is certainly not unthinkable.Again: God is often spoken of, not only as a being possessing infinite attributes and perfections, but as the Infinite Being. Here the attempt is made to entangle us in a puzzle. It is argued: if He be the infinite Being, there can be no being beyond Him. He must therefore include all being, both actual and possible. If this be so, He must also include the finite, otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite being—or in other words, being without limit would not include all being, which is self-contradictory. Several other self-contradictions may be easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles.I reply that the term“Being”is used here in a sense so intensely abstract, that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which quantity can legitimately be predicated. Of material being we can affirm that it is quantitative, but of no other. The adding on the word“infinite,”and calling God the infinite Being, is to use words which have no validity as conceptions.But it is also common to speak of God's moral attributes as infinite, such as His benevolence, holiness, justice and truth. This again is inaccurate, and its result is to plunge us into hopeless confusion of thought. Such attributes admit of no quantitative measures. They are perfect, not infinite. To speak of God's truthfulness as infinite is simply absurd. A thing is true, or not true. A moral being is truthful or not truthful. Benevolence may be perfect or imperfect; but it cannot be measured by number or by line. These conceptions can only mean what we mean[pg 116]by them, and nothing else, even when applied to God, or we are attempting to pass off forged notes for genuine ones. The only possible additional idea which we introduce when thus ascribing them to God, is that in Him they are perfect, free from the imperfections with which they exist in us. To affirm that when we say that God is perfectly benevolent, or perfectly truthful, we introduce into the conception, as applied to Him, a new factor, beyond the meaning of benevolence and truthfulness as used in human language, and that this new factor can make the divine benevolence different from our human conception of it, or can lead God to actions which man can by no possibility view as benevolent or true; and then to say that God is benevolent or true, is an abuse of language, or, to use Mr. Mill's words, an offensive flattery.But it has been urged that the moral attributes of God, even if we view them not as infinite but as perfect, must be beyond the limits of human thought, and therefore may produce results different in character from the corresponding principles in man, because they are the attributes of an infinite being. I have already disposed of this objection. Benevolence, holiness, and truth cannot be other than benevolence, holiness, and truth, to whatever being we may attribute them.It is therefore no necessary consequence, because we ascribe to God some attributes which are infinite, and others which are perfect, that God must therefore be unknowable or unthinkable. We may know much about Him, without knowing all things. Our not knowing all about things does not render them either unknowable or unthinkable. Our knowledge may be imperfect; but as far as it goes it maybe real. If we were to affirm that we only know that which we[pg 117]know perfectly, or were unable to reason on imperfect knowledge, mental progress would be brought to a standstill. Nor is it right to affirm that we are only reasoning in a circle when we reason from His moral attributes as displayed in the government of the world in favour of the probability of a revelation; or if because a revelation which claims to be from God, bears the impress of His character, we employ this fact as an evidence that it comes from Him. To affirm that He is unknowable or unthinkable is to proclaim that man has no concern with God, and that all revelation is impossible; therefore, the objections urged against the evidence of supernatural religion on these grounds are untenable.But there are the difficulties about the Absolute and the First Cause. It has been urged that the Absolute is that which is out of relation to every thing else—perfectly independent in itself. It is argued, therefore, if God be this Absolute, he cannot be the first Cause, because a cause can only be a cause by its being in relation to that of which it is the cause. For similar reasons, if he be the first Cause, He cannot be the Absolute. But as He is both, He must therefore be unknowable and unthinkable.It is impossible in a treatise like this to enter into such profound metaphysical questions. For my present purpose, I can safely refer to Mr. Mill's discussion on this subject. As far as the views in question bear adversely on Christian evidence, he has sufficiently refuted them. It is not fair for unbelievers to put forth these positions as subversive of Christianity, without answering the reasonings of so eminent an unbeliever as Mr. Mill in proof of their inconclusiveness, or even alluding to the fact that he has pronounced them untenable.There is no point which reasoners of this class have[pg 118]laboured more diligently to prove than that it is impossible for human reason to think of God as a person. The assumption of the personality of God is the foundation of the Christian argument, without which, even if the occurrence of miracles could be proved as objective facts, they would have no evidential value. It follows, therefore, that if our only mode of attaining the knowledge of the personality of God be from revelation, we are arguing in a vicious circle.Briefly stated, the argument of unbelief is as follows: God is the infinite Being. Personality is a conception which necessarily involves the finite. Therefore it cannot be predicated of an infinite Being. It follows therefore that to speak of God as infinite, and at the same time as a person, involves a contradiction.It is an unquestionable fact that the only beings whom we are directly acquainted with as persons are finite beings,i.e.men. No less certain is it that the only beings whom we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are finite beings,i.e.men, and those various classes of animals by which the latter quality is manifested. The argument is equally valid for proving that wisdom and intelligence can only belong to finite beings; and consequently that the existence of wisdom and intelligence in the first Cause of all things is inconceivable, and the assumption that He is wise and intelligent is a contradiction. The same argument is no less valid against ascribing any moral perfection to Him, or in fact any other, for all our knowledge of such things is both in itself finite, and derived from finite beings.But it even goes further than this. If, as the positive philosophy lays down, our real knowledge of things is confined to direct subjects of cognition; as the only beings which we know to be possessed of wisdom and[pg 119]intelligence are men and animals, it is quite contrary to sound reasoning to infer that these qualities can be possessed by any other class of finite beings. To do so is to transfer human conceptions to beings who are not human. Equally valid would be the reasoning of an animal, if he could reason on the subject, as for instance a horse or a dog, that the existence of wisdom and intelligence beyond his own limited sphere was an unwarrantable assumption. Pantheists have also propounded theories on the assumption of the existence in nature of an unconscious wisdom and intelligence. This assumption is open to the most formidable objections; but even on their own principles it is utterly invalid; for if on the grounds which they allege it is impossible to ascribe personality to God, the same reasonings are equally valid against ascribing wisdom and intelligence to unconscious nature.I conclude, therefore, that it by no means follows because our direct knowledge of personality is confined to human beings, and is derived from them, that personality itself cannot be conceived of as a property belonging to any other than human beings. It is absurd to maintain that the qualities of things must be confined to those things from which we learn their existence.But it will be objected that the very essential notion of personality is limitation; consequently that although it may be conceived of as belonging to limited beings, it transcends the power of thought to conceive of it as the attribute of a being who is unlimited or infinite; that is to say, that although it lies within the power of thought to conceive of the Being who had adequate power to build the universe as a Person, because the power may be a limited power, yet when I ascribe to Him beyond this the possession of all possible power,[pg 120]the conception of personality becomes unthinkable. This is the real meaning of the affirmation, unless our reasonings are to be confined within the region of abstractions. But we have no assurance that such reasonings are valid, unless we can bring them to the test of some concrete form of thought.Next: It by no means follows because our conception of personality is derived from finite beings, that it is necessarily limited to them; and that it cannot be thought of in connection with a being, some of whose attributes are infinite and others perfect; in other words, that the idea of finiteness is necessarily involved in that of personality. What are the conceptions that make up the idea of our own personality? I reply, the power to affirm“I”of one's own being—the possession of will—the power of self-consciousness, and these in union with rationality. These conceptions we undoubtedly derive from the contemplation of our own finite being, but there is nothing in them which is necessarily limited to the finite. If the conception of an infinite being is possible (and the fact that it is so constantly introduced into this controversy proves that it is possible), then there is no reason why these conceptions, which certainly contain in them nothing quantitative, should not be applicable to such a being. The real fact is, these conceptions are not inherently finite, because they have nothing in them of a quantitative character,—they are only derived from a being whose manifestation in space we conceive of under the form of limitation, and whose attributes are neither infinite nor perfect.I must call attention to the remark already made that the correct representation of God in thought is not that of a pure abstraction, the infinite Being, but of a being who possesses attributes, some of which are[pg 121]infinite and others perfect. To affirm that such a being is a person, is not to attempt to think that which is unthinkable. When we affirm that God possesses the power adequate to build the universe, and all possible power beside, we do not ascribe to Him that of which it is impossible to predicate the possession of will or self-consciousness. When we affirm that such a being exists now, that he has existed in all past known times, and that no limits in point of time are conceivable of him, there is nothing contradictory in ascribing to such a Being personality. It is quite thinkable that an ultimate particle may never have had a beginning and never will have an end; no less so is it that such a particle may be possessed of personality, for it is finite. Surely therefore there is nothing in the ascription to God of existence without beginning and without end, which destroys the idea of His personality.It has been necessary to enter thus far into this subject, because in reasoning on the Christian revelation we must assume the existence of a personal God, unless all such treatises, in addition to their own proper subject-matter, must likewise contain an elaborate work on the principles of theism, and a refutation of those of pantheism and atheism. The defender of Christianity is charged with reasoning in a circle, as though he first assumed the existence of a personal God, and then derived the idea of his existence from revelation. This charge would undoubtedly be true if the idea of God being a person is unthinkable. I am at a loss to conceive how it becomes one atom more thinkable if communicated by a revelation. Much obscurity has undoubtedly been thrown on this subject by Christian writers who have fancied that the more they can invalidate our reason the greater gain accrues to Revelation. This is not only unwise but irrational. Our[pg 122]reason doubtless is but an imperfect light, but its extinction is to leave us to grope in darkness. I affirm therefore that the assumption of the divine personality as the groundwork of our argument involves nopetitio principii, or reasoning in a circle.One more remark and I will bring this portion of the subject to a close. The affirmation made by this philosophy that certain things are unthinkable is fallacious. What do we mean by“unthinkable”? It may mean many things; first, that the subject cannot be made in any sense an object of thought. This, in fact, is the only legitimate use of the word. But in this sense the affirmation cannot be true of even Mr. Herbert Spencer's unknown and unknowable God, for it is evident that he does manage to reason and think about him somehow. It may mean a being respecting whom we may know much and attain a knowledge continually progressing, but respecting whom there is much which is unknown. This unknown is called unthinkable. But it is not unthinkable. It has only not yet become the subject of our knowledge, and is no more unthinkable than any other unknown truth. Or that may be pronounced to be unthinkable respecting which our conceptions are wanting in definiteness and precision. But to designate such things as unthinkable is an abuse of language. Or that may be designated as unthinkable of which our conceptions fail fully to represent the reality. As far as they go, they may be true, but there may be something beyond of a similar kind, which they do not embrace. This is the only sense in which it can be affirmed that God is unthinkable, but the assertion is altogether misleading. The only correct meaning of the expression is when some particular thing is affirmed to exist and at the same time contradictions co-exist in it. The actual co-existence[pg 123]of these two contradictions is unthinkable, but nothing more. Thus the existence of a round square is unthinkable, so would the affirmation that the divine power was at the same time both limited and unlimited. But in no other sense is a conception unthinkable. To affirm that the cause of all things is unthinkable because our conceptions of Him do not measure the entire depths of His being is simply misleading.I have gone into this question because it is evident that if God is unthinkable a revelation of Him is impossible, and if a revelation of Him is impossible, all miracles affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of one must be delusions.[pg 124]

Chapter V. The Antecedent Improbability of Miracles.—The Unknown and Unknowable God.The proof onà priorigrounds that an event is either possible or probable, cannot establish that it has actually occurred. This must rest on its own particular evidence. To prove that a revelation is both possible and probable, and that it ought to be evidenced by miracles, may form an essential portion of our general argument, because the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular fact affects the amount of positive evidence necessary to establish its truth. But the proof that a revelation has actually been given, or a miracle wrought, can only be effected through the same media as those through which other facts are established. To prove that a revelation is probable will not be of the smallest avail to prove that one has been actually given, without adequate proof of the fact itself.Still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important, because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible. If this can be demonstrated, the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers; for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible. It[pg 096]may be assumed, however, that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings; because, after having demonstrated, as they allege, that miracles are impossible, they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the Gospels, and pronounce it worthless. As, therefore, the opponents of Christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible, it is necessary that the defender of Christianity should examine the validity of the assertion.Our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle, or assuming the fact which ought to be proved. To avoid even the appearance of this, I lay down the following positions:—If direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the Universe, it follows that a divine revelation is impossible. Nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so, because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature, but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will. With the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible, because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena, the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past. Still the occurrence of a fact, however extraordinary, would not constitute a miracle, and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe, or the predominance of chance.The same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no God exists, but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one.Nor is the case altogether different with regard to[pg 097]pantheism. According to this system, God is only another name for nature, which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious self-evolution. The essence of its affirmation is, that God has no conscious personal existence, but that He is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe. Such a being (if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all, or as a unity) is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena, the result of the blind action of its inherent forces. But to whom? Obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness, whom it (I dare not say, He) has evolved out of its own bosom, and will again resolve into unconsciousness. Prior to their evolution this mighty τὸ πᾶν must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself, without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them. Whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view, it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe, a revelation and miracles, in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning, are impossible.No less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by Mr. Herbert Spencer, which, while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things, as alike required by the demands of philosophy, science, and religion, yet affirms that He is unknown and unknowable, and that every thing which is knowable, although a manifestation of that great unknown cause, yet conveys no idea of Him that the intellect can apprehend. In one word, the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable, and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought. The intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things; but all that it can affirm of him is, that He is unknown and unknowable;[pg 098]and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge, though it may represent some mode of his existence, cannot be he, or like him. With respect to this theory, while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism, it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing God out of the universe, of which He is alleged to be the cause. He can neither be a person, nor have wisdom, nor be benevolent, nor be capable of conscious self-manifestation; because all these conceptions are limited and finite. All that we can know of Him is, that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena; and that we are condemned respecting Him, to a profound and perpetual ignorance. It is possible to designate such a being by the name of God, but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it. Such a God is a bare abstract conception of the intellect, void of all moral value. It is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself. Consequently St. Paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown God at Athens,“Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you”(Acts xvii. 23), is untrue. To such a God a revelation of Himself, and miracles to confirm it, are alike impossible.It is evident, therefore, that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things, all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless. Let us take the most favourable hypothesis, that of Mr. Spencer. It concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things, which may be called God. But He is unknowable; He is inscrutable. No conception of[pg 099]Him can be realized in thought; it follows, therefore, that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man, for if a revelation of Him could be made, He cannot be unknowable. This being so, the person who attempts to reason out the truth of Christianity is placed under a difficulty. Christianity assumes the existence of a personal God, possessed of moral attributes. This is the very truth, the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting. The Christian advocate, therefore, has only two courses before him: First, To assume, in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind, that a personal God exists; and then to argue for the truth of Christianity, and to answer the objections urged against it. When we do this, objectors affirm that we beg the question. Or, Secondly, To prove the existence of a personal God; and then to argue for the truth of revelation. If he adopts the latter course, he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests, and to answer the objections to it—or, in other words, to compose a bulky volume, before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry.Now I affirm that the defender of Christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal God as the foundation of his reasonings, than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is, who takes for granted the truth of Euclid's propositions.The author of the work to which I have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of Christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions. I will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject, but I trust I shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded. I must briefly notice a few of his reasonings.[pg 100]At page 68 he writes as follows:“Dr. Mozley is well aware that the assumption of a‘personal’God is not susceptible of proof; indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption.”An assumption, I ask, in what sense? Is it a simple assumption without evidence, taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument; or is it one which, though taken for granted in the present case, rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established, and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of Euclid do to those of trigonometry? The latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former. Without referring to the authority of any particular author, is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a Personal God rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason? Have not numbers of men, endowed with the highest powers of intellect, accepted it as satisfactory? Yet he seeks to imply that, after all, it is an assumption. It is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted; but we do so, because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason.I admit that Dr. Mozley has used, in speaking of this subject, language which I cannot but think is wanting in precision. Still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it.“It is then to be admitted,”says he,“that historically, and looking to the general actual reception of it, this conception of God was derived from revelation. Not from the first dawn of history to the spread of Christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a Being.”The learned author then states, at considerable length, the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of God, and shows their inadequacy and[pg 101]imperfection, and concludes as follows:“But although this conception of the Deity has been received through the channel of the Bible, what communicates a truth is one thing, what proves it is another.”He then proceeds to summarize the general proof.I cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity. Whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied, there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of God, though indefinite and indistinct, underlay them all. The most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a Supreme God above all the degraded objects of his worship. It seems to me impossible that such a conception of God can have been attained from revelation. It may, in a certain sense, be said, looking at the precise form in which it is embodied, that it has been derived by us historically from the Jewish race. But it must have had a prior origin. St. Paul considered that the material universe manifested His eternal power and Godhead. The primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of God. It is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the Bible. It is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the Bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge, but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof, and whose only basis is conjecture. Judaism and Christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the Deity and dissipating false ones. Yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly, no formal revelation could have put it there, for every such revelation must be conveyed in language, and all language is meaningless, unless the mind can realize its conceptions. The assertion,[pg 102]therefore, that the conception of God has been first communicated through the channel of the Bible, and is afterwards proved by reason, seems to me to be one not devoid of danger. On the contrary, our belief that God exists is the very pre-condition of our being able to believe that He has revealed Himself. This conception revelation may modify, invest with a higher moral character, and import into it definiteness and precision, but it cannot create it. It is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of Christianity in a vicious circle. I fully admit that the conception of God has been elevated and purified by the influence of Christianity, and that the teaching of Christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason. But it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle, and that the Christian argument involves reasoning from Theism to Christianity and from Christianity back to Theism.The following passage, cited by Professor Mozley from Baden Powell, is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation, and from revelation to reason. The passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge, and requires our careful consideration.“Everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God; but in acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature a mind, a universal mind, but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. Nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a[pg 103]universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing; and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And therefore that conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature, to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere. That conception is attained from revelation, which is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism.”It will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage.First: The author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces, laws, and phenomena of the physical universe, and for these alone. To this I have no objection, for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning. But while he uses it thus, he nowhere tells us in what relation man, including his faculties, intellectual and moral, and above all, his will, stands to nature. Are they included in, or excluded from it? Do they, or do they not, form a part of it? If they are included in nature, then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a God, beyond those on which the author reasons. If they are excluded, then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion. Our reasonings respecting God are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature, but on man, his reason, his conscience, and his will. What makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man, as well as the forces and laws of the material universe.[pg 104]As far as the physical universe is concerned, the mind infers the existence of a God from its order and its harmonies; that is to say, having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation, and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source, we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves. Such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only, but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own self-conscious being. But the intelligence which produces order, as far as we are cognisant of it, is invariably united with will. We therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature, not simply the conception of a God, such as the God of pantheism; but, if they are valid to prove anything at all, of a God who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order, and of purpose adequate for its production. If the inference of the existence of a God from the works of nature is valid, it must be of a God possessed of the attributes in question, for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason.It is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law; that is to say, we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation. But WE, that is the reasoning, rational beings, whether existing in nature or outside it, have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind, and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will. If our reasoning from the order of the material universe is[pg 105]valid to prove the presence of mind, which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves, it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition, for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes. The material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind; but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one. But if our minds form part of nature, then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe. If they are outside nature, then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature,i.e.above the physical forces of the universe. It follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will, exist within nature or without it, a God who possesses similar powers may exist also.In a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature,i.e.matter and its phenomena, only informs us of the presence of mind in nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. But let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement. We learn the presence of mind, not from material nature, but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote. This is overlooked in the above argument. It is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance, we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature. In fact we do not see mind at all, but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason; and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind.The writer before me is one of those who affirm that[pg 106]the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature, in which he includes every species of vital organism, is the presence of order and harmony; and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation, contrivance and design is invalid. I reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind. But we also observe in natural phenomena, and above all in animal and vegetable structures, that the results effected are produced, not by simple forces, but by the careful adjustment of many, or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another, and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place. Had any of these occurred otherwise, the result would have been different. Throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result. This we usually designate by the word“adaptation.”Adaptation implies intelligence and purpose. We are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature, as any other quality whatever, even the possession of mind.I fully concede that natural phenomena and even the phenomena of the mind of man, only testify directly to the existence of a power adequate to their production, and that we cannot directly infer from them the presence of omnipotence. But this is to quarrel about words. For the power manifested in nature and in man is so great that the human mind can make no distinction between it and omnipotence; or in other words, it justly infers from its manifestations that the power which could originate this universe and all things in it must be capable of effecting anything which is possible.[pg 107]To this mind, whether in or out of nature, our reason ascribes the attributes of intelligence and will. Such a power it is incapable of conceiving as inherent in material forces; it therefore assumes that this power exists outside nature, and is capable of controlling it.It follows therefore that the reasoning is fallacious, which asserts that the conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception which we must seek from revelation, and cannot be arrived at by any exertion of our rational powers on the facts of nature and of man. Its apparent plausibility has arisen solely from ignoring the presence of man, either in nature or outside it, and neglecting to take the facts of human nature, man's reason, conscience and will, into consideration. To affirm that, independently of man's moral and intellectual being, physical nature, its forces and laws, can prove nothing, is a simple platitude. We have not to go to revelation for the principles on which we reason, but to man, and the phenomena of his rational, self-conscious, and voluntary agency. It follows, therefore, that the affirmation that in conducting the Christian argument we reason from God to miracles and from miracles to God, is utterly disproved. Yet the writer before me has ventured to affirm that, when we commence with the being of a personal God as the groundwork of our reasonings, we begin and end with a bare assumption.The philosophical writings of Dr. Mansel are also pressed into the service for the purpose of discrediting the evidences of Christianity, and, I own, with considerably greater reason. Mr. Herbert Spencer has also invoked them in confirmation of his theory that God is unknown and unknowable. He refers to them[pg 108]in the following words:“Here I cannot do better than avail myself of the demonstration which Mr. Mansel, carrying out in detail the doctrine of Sir W. Hamilton, has given us in his‘Limits of Religious Thought.’And I gladly do this, not only because his mode of presentation cannot be improved, but because writing as he does in defence of current theology, his reasonings will be more acceptable to the majority of readers.”Before referring to Dr. Mansel as an unquestionable authority on this subject, it would only have been candid in both writers to have informed their readers that not only have his principles been repudiated by a considerable number of Christian writers as unsound, but they have been carefully examined by that eminent atheistic philosopher, Mr. Mill, who gives it as his deliberate opinion that they are founded on fallacious principles. It is absurd to urge principles, though they have been maintained by an eminent Christian writer, which an eminent unbeliever has pronounced unsound, as a clear and conclusive argument against Christianity.The work of Dr. Mansel may be described as an attempt to prove the truth of Christianity on the principles of the most sceptical philosophy. It may be briefly stated thus: Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God as He is, whether as the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause. All the conceptions which we can frame on the subject are mutually self-destructive. On similar principles our conceptions of His moral attributes are wholly inadequate to inform us of His real perfections. It by no means follows that our human conception of benevolence or justice is a measure of the divine benevolence, or of divine justice; and so of His other attributes. It is affirmed that because they[pg 109]are the attributes of an infinite Being, they lie beyond the possibility of being realized in human thought. Consequently, holiness in God may admit of very different manifestations from holiness in man. Upon these principles, which affirm the inadequacy of the human intellect, even to conceive of anything as it exists in God, it follows that our only possible conceptions of God are relative; or, to use the word chosen by the author in relation to Christianity, regulative;i.e.fitted to regulate our conduct, but not to illuminate our understanding.Upon the assumption that reason, when it attempts to analyse our ideas of the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause, lands us in hopeless contradictions, Dr. Mansel arrives at the conclusion that it is incapable of forming any conception of God as he actually exists. It follows as a necessary consequence from this, that even by revelation we are only capable of attaining relative ideas of Him, and that these relative ideas do not represent His real nature, but are only regulative of conduct,i.e.we are to act upon them as if they were true.E.g.God is revealed as holy. Our only conception of holiness is our human conception of it. But we cannot know that this is an adequate measure of the divine holiness. God is declared to be benevolent. We have no conception of benevolence but that which is derived from the human mind. So likewise with respect to justice. But benevolence and justice as they exist in God may differ from these qualities as they exist in man. The same thing follows as a necessary conclusion from Dr. Mansel's premises with respect to all the other attributes of God. Nothing will better illustrate the position to which this argument reduces us than to apply it to the truthfulness or veracity of God. All that we know about truthfulness[pg 110]is as it exists in finite beings, that is, in men. But God is an infinite being. It follows therefore that truthfulness in man is no adequate representation of truthfulness as it exists in God, that is to say, that the divine veracity may differ from our human conception of it. This is certainly a very startling position.If, therefore, these principles are correct, acquiescence on the part of man in the divine character is impossible. It is impossible to love a being who does not present to us the aspect of loveliness; or to reverence one who does not present to us an aspect capable of exciting this emotion; or to feel trust in a being of whose justice we have no certainty that it resembles our conception of justice; or to rely on the promises of one whose veracity may differ from our own. Such feelings cannot be made to order. They can only be generated by the contemplation of a being who is holy, benevolent, just, and true, in the ordinary acceptation of these words. They cannot be excited by any merely regulative ideas. We love, reverence, and trust, not ideas or conceptions, but persons, possessing moral attributes. But on the principle of merely regulative ideas of God, the assertion that“God is love,”loses all its value, if God is not what I mean by love, but, because he is infinite, he may be something else, I know not what; and thus the great precept of the moral law,“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength,”becomes meaningless. Such devotion of our entire nature cannot be created by the mere command to render it. It can only be rendered to a being whose claims over us we both feel and know to be an absolute reality, and to whom on the conviction of their reality we can offer ourselves up a voluntary sacrifice. But if we cannot know Him as He is, how is the fire of devotion to Him[pg 111]to be kindled in our hearts? How shall we trust in Him? How shall we acquiesce in His character? How shall we worship Him, how shall we adore Him, if it is true that the justice, benevolence, or holiness of the divine character may not resemble our conception of them? Nay, more: the theory in question lays the axe to the root of the Christian revelation itself. There is no affirmation of the New Testament more decisive than that Jesus Christ in His divine and human personality is the image of the invisible God, as far as His moral perfections are concerned. Are the perfections of the character of Jesus Christ only regulative, or are they real representations of these attributes as they exist in God? Are the divine attributes of holiness, benevolence, or justice, adequately represented by the manifestations of them, as made by Jesus Christ? If we accept the testimony of St. John's Gospel, our Lord himself has expressly affirmed,“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”(John xiv. 9). But this is impossible if our conceptions of God's moral attributes are only regulative, and if the human idea of holiness is no adequate representation of the divine.However erroneous a system may be, yet if it has been elaborated by a powerful mind, it has generally some foundation in reason, and I am far from affirming that, with considerable qualifications, some important elements of truth may not be found in that of Dr. Mansel. It is well that we should be made to feel that there are limits of thought beyond which the human mind cannot penetrate, and that there are profundities of metaphysics which an imperfect measuring-line cannot reach. But placing the matter as he has, the Christian apologist may well feel indebted to Mr. Mill for his crushing demolition of the dangerous portions of Dr. Mansel's system. When unbelievers quote the[pg 112]authority of Dr. Mansel, why do they not also tell their readers that there was at least one unbeliever of very high logical power, who wrote against the validity of his system.It is one thing to affirm that we cannot penetrate to the depths of the Deity, and that after we have raised our thoughts to the highest, there is something higher still; and quite another to affirm that our highest thoughts of him have no validity; or, to use the terms of a fashionable philosophy, that God is unknown and unknowable, that no true conception of Him can be formed in thought; in one word, that he is absolutely unthinkable. The difficulties of this subject have arisen mainly from discussing it in terms of pure abstractions, instead of embodying them in a concrete form. It is impossible in this place to enter on the profound depths involved in these questions; but a few observations will be necessary for the purpose of clearing away the difficulties in which our opponents seek to involve the subject of miracles. I shall confine myself to our conceptions of the Infinite.It is affirmed that no conception of the infinite can be framed in thought; that it is therefore unthinkable, and transcends the limits of human knowledge; that it is a negation; and that therefore our reason is unable to affirm anything respecting it; that the idea of personality is incompatible with that of infinity; and that therefore when we speak of God as a person who possesses infinite perfections, we enter on a region where human thought is invalid, and respecting which all affirmation involves a contradiction.But when we are told that the infinite transcends thought, we are entitled to demand that we should not be kept playing with an abstraction, and to ask, what is infinite? In what sense does it transcend thought?[pg 113]Does this mean that it is absolutely unthinkable; or only partially so; or that our conception of it is imperfect? Is it simply unknowable, or does it consist of something which we know,plussomething that has not come within the limits of our knowledge, but which something is of a similar character to the known? It will be at once seen that the determination of these questions is at the root of the whole controversy. If then by the infinite we mean something knownplussomething unknown, to speak of God as unknowable and unthinkable is absurd. Our knowledge of Him may not be full, but yet real so far as it goes. When it is affirmed that God is a being who exists, but is unthinkable by man, the effect is to place Him beyond the bounds of human knowledge, and thereby free us from all necessity of troubling ourselves about Him. We know that He exists in the profundities of the unknown; and that is all. For the purposes of thought and of morality, He is thus made of less value than an algebraicx.When it is affirmed that the infinite is unknowable, I again ask, what infinite? The infinite as an abstract idea has no real existence; but something that is infinite. The conception itself is an essentially quantitative conception, and is only strictly applicable to number and extension. When I speak therefore of an infinite number, what do I mean? The only answer possible is,“The greatest number I can conceive,plusall possible number without limit.”Does my adding on the latter factor invalidate the reality of my conception of the former? Is that which is added on anything else than number? Surely here I have a valid conception. The same is true when we speak of the infinity of space. I mean by it the greatest space I can conceive,plusspace without limit. Is the idea of space[pg 114]rendered unthinkable, because I add the conception of space without limit? Does it cease to be space? But space is conceivable. It follows therefore that neither infinite number nor infinite extension is absolutely unthinkable. We speak of the infinite divisibility of matter. Does matter, because it goes on to be divided for ever, cease to be matter?In the same manner we speak of God, and call Him infinite. It would be far more correct to speak of Him as a Being who has infinite attributes. Here, however, if accuracy of thought is to be preserved, a distinction must be made. Some attributes of God may be viewed as quantitative; others cannot. It is to the former only that the term infinite properly applies. A moral attribute cannot have a quantitative measure applied to it. It is therefore not infinite, but perfect.When we speak of God as a being possessed of infinite power, what do we mean? The thing intended is, that He is a being who possesses such power as enabled Him to create the universe, and that He is capable of exerting every other degree of power which is possible. We may call this, if we like, power without limit; though there is always one limit to possible power, viz., that of working contradictions. Of course we are ignorant of what are the limits of possible power.But when we make this addition to our finite conception, we mean by it power similar to that exhibited in the universe—it and all other power beyond it. Must such a conception be banished outside the limits of rational thought? Is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to build the universe, and all possible power besides, unthinkable? Again, we speak of God as infinitely wise. What do we mean by it? We affirm that He knows all things actual and possible.[pg 115]The knowledge is none the less knowledge, because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge of the possible. Such a being is certainly not unthinkable.Again: God is often spoken of, not only as a being possessing infinite attributes and perfections, but as the Infinite Being. Here the attempt is made to entangle us in a puzzle. It is argued: if He be the infinite Being, there can be no being beyond Him. He must therefore include all being, both actual and possible. If this be so, He must also include the finite, otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite being—or in other words, being without limit would not include all being, which is self-contradictory. Several other self-contradictions may be easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles.I reply that the term“Being”is used here in a sense so intensely abstract, that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which quantity can legitimately be predicated. Of material being we can affirm that it is quantitative, but of no other. The adding on the word“infinite,”and calling God the infinite Being, is to use words which have no validity as conceptions.But it is also common to speak of God's moral attributes as infinite, such as His benevolence, holiness, justice and truth. This again is inaccurate, and its result is to plunge us into hopeless confusion of thought. Such attributes admit of no quantitative measures. They are perfect, not infinite. To speak of God's truthfulness as infinite is simply absurd. A thing is true, or not true. A moral being is truthful or not truthful. Benevolence may be perfect or imperfect; but it cannot be measured by number or by line. These conceptions can only mean what we mean[pg 116]by them, and nothing else, even when applied to God, or we are attempting to pass off forged notes for genuine ones. The only possible additional idea which we introduce when thus ascribing them to God, is that in Him they are perfect, free from the imperfections with which they exist in us. To affirm that when we say that God is perfectly benevolent, or perfectly truthful, we introduce into the conception, as applied to Him, a new factor, beyond the meaning of benevolence and truthfulness as used in human language, and that this new factor can make the divine benevolence different from our human conception of it, or can lead God to actions which man can by no possibility view as benevolent or true; and then to say that God is benevolent or true, is an abuse of language, or, to use Mr. Mill's words, an offensive flattery.But it has been urged that the moral attributes of God, even if we view them not as infinite but as perfect, must be beyond the limits of human thought, and therefore may produce results different in character from the corresponding principles in man, because they are the attributes of an infinite being. I have already disposed of this objection. Benevolence, holiness, and truth cannot be other than benevolence, holiness, and truth, to whatever being we may attribute them.It is therefore no necessary consequence, because we ascribe to God some attributes which are infinite, and others which are perfect, that God must therefore be unknowable or unthinkable. We may know much about Him, without knowing all things. Our not knowing all about things does not render them either unknowable or unthinkable. Our knowledge may be imperfect; but as far as it goes it maybe real. If we were to affirm that we only know that which we[pg 117]know perfectly, or were unable to reason on imperfect knowledge, mental progress would be brought to a standstill. Nor is it right to affirm that we are only reasoning in a circle when we reason from His moral attributes as displayed in the government of the world in favour of the probability of a revelation; or if because a revelation which claims to be from God, bears the impress of His character, we employ this fact as an evidence that it comes from Him. To affirm that He is unknowable or unthinkable is to proclaim that man has no concern with God, and that all revelation is impossible; therefore, the objections urged against the evidence of supernatural religion on these grounds are untenable.But there are the difficulties about the Absolute and the First Cause. It has been urged that the Absolute is that which is out of relation to every thing else—perfectly independent in itself. It is argued, therefore, if God be this Absolute, he cannot be the first Cause, because a cause can only be a cause by its being in relation to that of which it is the cause. For similar reasons, if he be the first Cause, He cannot be the Absolute. But as He is both, He must therefore be unknowable and unthinkable.It is impossible in a treatise like this to enter into such profound metaphysical questions. For my present purpose, I can safely refer to Mr. Mill's discussion on this subject. As far as the views in question bear adversely on Christian evidence, he has sufficiently refuted them. It is not fair for unbelievers to put forth these positions as subversive of Christianity, without answering the reasonings of so eminent an unbeliever as Mr. Mill in proof of their inconclusiveness, or even alluding to the fact that he has pronounced them untenable.There is no point which reasoners of this class have[pg 118]laboured more diligently to prove than that it is impossible for human reason to think of God as a person. The assumption of the personality of God is the foundation of the Christian argument, without which, even if the occurrence of miracles could be proved as objective facts, they would have no evidential value. It follows, therefore, that if our only mode of attaining the knowledge of the personality of God be from revelation, we are arguing in a vicious circle.Briefly stated, the argument of unbelief is as follows: God is the infinite Being. Personality is a conception which necessarily involves the finite. Therefore it cannot be predicated of an infinite Being. It follows therefore that to speak of God as infinite, and at the same time as a person, involves a contradiction.It is an unquestionable fact that the only beings whom we are directly acquainted with as persons are finite beings,i.e.men. No less certain is it that the only beings whom we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are finite beings,i.e.men, and those various classes of animals by which the latter quality is manifested. The argument is equally valid for proving that wisdom and intelligence can only belong to finite beings; and consequently that the existence of wisdom and intelligence in the first Cause of all things is inconceivable, and the assumption that He is wise and intelligent is a contradiction. The same argument is no less valid against ascribing any moral perfection to Him, or in fact any other, for all our knowledge of such things is both in itself finite, and derived from finite beings.But it even goes further than this. If, as the positive philosophy lays down, our real knowledge of things is confined to direct subjects of cognition; as the only beings which we know to be possessed of wisdom and[pg 119]intelligence are men and animals, it is quite contrary to sound reasoning to infer that these qualities can be possessed by any other class of finite beings. To do so is to transfer human conceptions to beings who are not human. Equally valid would be the reasoning of an animal, if he could reason on the subject, as for instance a horse or a dog, that the existence of wisdom and intelligence beyond his own limited sphere was an unwarrantable assumption. Pantheists have also propounded theories on the assumption of the existence in nature of an unconscious wisdom and intelligence. This assumption is open to the most formidable objections; but even on their own principles it is utterly invalid; for if on the grounds which they allege it is impossible to ascribe personality to God, the same reasonings are equally valid against ascribing wisdom and intelligence to unconscious nature.I conclude, therefore, that it by no means follows because our direct knowledge of personality is confined to human beings, and is derived from them, that personality itself cannot be conceived of as a property belonging to any other than human beings. It is absurd to maintain that the qualities of things must be confined to those things from which we learn their existence.But it will be objected that the very essential notion of personality is limitation; consequently that although it may be conceived of as belonging to limited beings, it transcends the power of thought to conceive of it as the attribute of a being who is unlimited or infinite; that is to say, that although it lies within the power of thought to conceive of the Being who had adequate power to build the universe as a Person, because the power may be a limited power, yet when I ascribe to Him beyond this the possession of all possible power,[pg 120]the conception of personality becomes unthinkable. This is the real meaning of the affirmation, unless our reasonings are to be confined within the region of abstractions. But we have no assurance that such reasonings are valid, unless we can bring them to the test of some concrete form of thought.Next: It by no means follows because our conception of personality is derived from finite beings, that it is necessarily limited to them; and that it cannot be thought of in connection with a being, some of whose attributes are infinite and others perfect; in other words, that the idea of finiteness is necessarily involved in that of personality. What are the conceptions that make up the idea of our own personality? I reply, the power to affirm“I”of one's own being—the possession of will—the power of self-consciousness, and these in union with rationality. These conceptions we undoubtedly derive from the contemplation of our own finite being, but there is nothing in them which is necessarily limited to the finite. If the conception of an infinite being is possible (and the fact that it is so constantly introduced into this controversy proves that it is possible), then there is no reason why these conceptions, which certainly contain in them nothing quantitative, should not be applicable to such a being. The real fact is, these conceptions are not inherently finite, because they have nothing in them of a quantitative character,—they are only derived from a being whose manifestation in space we conceive of under the form of limitation, and whose attributes are neither infinite nor perfect.I must call attention to the remark already made that the correct representation of God in thought is not that of a pure abstraction, the infinite Being, but of a being who possesses attributes, some of which are[pg 121]infinite and others perfect. To affirm that such a being is a person, is not to attempt to think that which is unthinkable. When we affirm that God possesses the power adequate to build the universe, and all possible power beside, we do not ascribe to Him that of which it is impossible to predicate the possession of will or self-consciousness. When we affirm that such a being exists now, that he has existed in all past known times, and that no limits in point of time are conceivable of him, there is nothing contradictory in ascribing to such a Being personality. It is quite thinkable that an ultimate particle may never have had a beginning and never will have an end; no less so is it that such a particle may be possessed of personality, for it is finite. Surely therefore there is nothing in the ascription to God of existence without beginning and without end, which destroys the idea of His personality.It has been necessary to enter thus far into this subject, because in reasoning on the Christian revelation we must assume the existence of a personal God, unless all such treatises, in addition to their own proper subject-matter, must likewise contain an elaborate work on the principles of theism, and a refutation of those of pantheism and atheism. The defender of Christianity is charged with reasoning in a circle, as though he first assumed the existence of a personal God, and then derived the idea of his existence from revelation. This charge would undoubtedly be true if the idea of God being a person is unthinkable. I am at a loss to conceive how it becomes one atom more thinkable if communicated by a revelation. Much obscurity has undoubtedly been thrown on this subject by Christian writers who have fancied that the more they can invalidate our reason the greater gain accrues to Revelation. This is not only unwise but irrational. Our[pg 122]reason doubtless is but an imperfect light, but its extinction is to leave us to grope in darkness. I affirm therefore that the assumption of the divine personality as the groundwork of our argument involves nopetitio principii, or reasoning in a circle.One more remark and I will bring this portion of the subject to a close. The affirmation made by this philosophy that certain things are unthinkable is fallacious. What do we mean by“unthinkable”? It may mean many things; first, that the subject cannot be made in any sense an object of thought. This, in fact, is the only legitimate use of the word. But in this sense the affirmation cannot be true of even Mr. Herbert Spencer's unknown and unknowable God, for it is evident that he does manage to reason and think about him somehow. It may mean a being respecting whom we may know much and attain a knowledge continually progressing, but respecting whom there is much which is unknown. This unknown is called unthinkable. But it is not unthinkable. It has only not yet become the subject of our knowledge, and is no more unthinkable than any other unknown truth. Or that may be pronounced to be unthinkable respecting which our conceptions are wanting in definiteness and precision. But to designate such things as unthinkable is an abuse of language. Or that may be designated as unthinkable of which our conceptions fail fully to represent the reality. As far as they go, they may be true, but there may be something beyond of a similar kind, which they do not embrace. This is the only sense in which it can be affirmed that God is unthinkable, but the assertion is altogether misleading. The only correct meaning of the expression is when some particular thing is affirmed to exist and at the same time contradictions co-exist in it. The actual co-existence[pg 123]of these two contradictions is unthinkable, but nothing more. Thus the existence of a round square is unthinkable, so would the affirmation that the divine power was at the same time both limited and unlimited. But in no other sense is a conception unthinkable. To affirm that the cause of all things is unthinkable because our conceptions of Him do not measure the entire depths of His being is simply misleading.I have gone into this question because it is evident that if God is unthinkable a revelation of Him is impossible, and if a revelation of Him is impossible, all miracles affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of one must be delusions.[pg 124]

Chapter V. The Antecedent Improbability of Miracles.—The Unknown and Unknowable God.The proof onà priorigrounds that an event is either possible or probable, cannot establish that it has actually occurred. This must rest on its own particular evidence. To prove that a revelation is both possible and probable, and that it ought to be evidenced by miracles, may form an essential portion of our general argument, because the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular fact affects the amount of positive evidence necessary to establish its truth. But the proof that a revelation has actually been given, or a miracle wrought, can only be effected through the same media as those through which other facts are established. To prove that a revelation is probable will not be of the smallest avail to prove that one has been actually given, without adequate proof of the fact itself.Still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important, because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible. If this can be demonstrated, the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers; for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible. It[pg 096]may be assumed, however, that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings; because, after having demonstrated, as they allege, that miracles are impossible, they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the Gospels, and pronounce it worthless. As, therefore, the opponents of Christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible, it is necessary that the defender of Christianity should examine the validity of the assertion.Our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle, or assuming the fact which ought to be proved. To avoid even the appearance of this, I lay down the following positions:—If direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the Universe, it follows that a divine revelation is impossible. Nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so, because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature, but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will. With the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible, because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena, the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past. Still the occurrence of a fact, however extraordinary, would not constitute a miracle, and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe, or the predominance of chance.The same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no God exists, but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one.Nor is the case altogether different with regard to[pg 097]pantheism. According to this system, God is only another name for nature, which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious self-evolution. The essence of its affirmation is, that God has no conscious personal existence, but that He is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe. Such a being (if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all, or as a unity) is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena, the result of the blind action of its inherent forces. But to whom? Obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness, whom it (I dare not say, He) has evolved out of its own bosom, and will again resolve into unconsciousness. Prior to their evolution this mighty τὸ πᾶν must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself, without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them. Whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view, it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe, a revelation and miracles, in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning, are impossible.No less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by Mr. Herbert Spencer, which, while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things, as alike required by the demands of philosophy, science, and religion, yet affirms that He is unknown and unknowable, and that every thing which is knowable, although a manifestation of that great unknown cause, yet conveys no idea of Him that the intellect can apprehend. In one word, the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable, and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought. The intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things; but all that it can affirm of him is, that He is unknown and unknowable;[pg 098]and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge, though it may represent some mode of his existence, cannot be he, or like him. With respect to this theory, while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism, it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing God out of the universe, of which He is alleged to be the cause. He can neither be a person, nor have wisdom, nor be benevolent, nor be capable of conscious self-manifestation; because all these conceptions are limited and finite. All that we can know of Him is, that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena; and that we are condemned respecting Him, to a profound and perpetual ignorance. It is possible to designate such a being by the name of God, but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it. Such a God is a bare abstract conception of the intellect, void of all moral value. It is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself. Consequently St. Paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown God at Athens,“Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you”(Acts xvii. 23), is untrue. To such a God a revelation of Himself, and miracles to confirm it, are alike impossible.It is evident, therefore, that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things, all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless. Let us take the most favourable hypothesis, that of Mr. Spencer. It concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things, which may be called God. But He is unknowable; He is inscrutable. No conception of[pg 099]Him can be realized in thought; it follows, therefore, that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man, for if a revelation of Him could be made, He cannot be unknowable. This being so, the person who attempts to reason out the truth of Christianity is placed under a difficulty. Christianity assumes the existence of a personal God, possessed of moral attributes. This is the very truth, the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting. The Christian advocate, therefore, has only two courses before him: First, To assume, in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind, that a personal God exists; and then to argue for the truth of Christianity, and to answer the objections urged against it. When we do this, objectors affirm that we beg the question. Or, Secondly, To prove the existence of a personal God; and then to argue for the truth of revelation. If he adopts the latter course, he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests, and to answer the objections to it—or, in other words, to compose a bulky volume, before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry.Now I affirm that the defender of Christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal God as the foundation of his reasonings, than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is, who takes for granted the truth of Euclid's propositions.The author of the work to which I have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of Christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions. I will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject, but I trust I shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded. I must briefly notice a few of his reasonings.[pg 100]At page 68 he writes as follows:“Dr. Mozley is well aware that the assumption of a‘personal’God is not susceptible of proof; indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption.”An assumption, I ask, in what sense? Is it a simple assumption without evidence, taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument; or is it one which, though taken for granted in the present case, rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established, and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of Euclid do to those of trigonometry? The latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former. Without referring to the authority of any particular author, is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a Personal God rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason? Have not numbers of men, endowed with the highest powers of intellect, accepted it as satisfactory? Yet he seeks to imply that, after all, it is an assumption. It is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted; but we do so, because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason.I admit that Dr. Mozley has used, in speaking of this subject, language which I cannot but think is wanting in precision. Still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it.“It is then to be admitted,”says he,“that historically, and looking to the general actual reception of it, this conception of God was derived from revelation. Not from the first dawn of history to the spread of Christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a Being.”The learned author then states, at considerable length, the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of God, and shows their inadequacy and[pg 101]imperfection, and concludes as follows:“But although this conception of the Deity has been received through the channel of the Bible, what communicates a truth is one thing, what proves it is another.”He then proceeds to summarize the general proof.I cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity. Whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied, there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of God, though indefinite and indistinct, underlay them all. The most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a Supreme God above all the degraded objects of his worship. It seems to me impossible that such a conception of God can have been attained from revelation. It may, in a certain sense, be said, looking at the precise form in which it is embodied, that it has been derived by us historically from the Jewish race. But it must have had a prior origin. St. Paul considered that the material universe manifested His eternal power and Godhead. The primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of God. It is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the Bible. It is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the Bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge, but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof, and whose only basis is conjecture. Judaism and Christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the Deity and dissipating false ones. Yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly, no formal revelation could have put it there, for every such revelation must be conveyed in language, and all language is meaningless, unless the mind can realize its conceptions. The assertion,[pg 102]therefore, that the conception of God has been first communicated through the channel of the Bible, and is afterwards proved by reason, seems to me to be one not devoid of danger. On the contrary, our belief that God exists is the very pre-condition of our being able to believe that He has revealed Himself. This conception revelation may modify, invest with a higher moral character, and import into it definiteness and precision, but it cannot create it. It is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of Christianity in a vicious circle. I fully admit that the conception of God has been elevated and purified by the influence of Christianity, and that the teaching of Christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason. But it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle, and that the Christian argument involves reasoning from Theism to Christianity and from Christianity back to Theism.The following passage, cited by Professor Mozley from Baden Powell, is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation, and from revelation to reason. The passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge, and requires our careful consideration.“Everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God; but in acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature a mind, a universal mind, but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. Nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a[pg 103]universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing; and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And therefore that conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature, to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere. That conception is attained from revelation, which is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism.”It will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage.First: The author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces, laws, and phenomena of the physical universe, and for these alone. To this I have no objection, for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning. But while he uses it thus, he nowhere tells us in what relation man, including his faculties, intellectual and moral, and above all, his will, stands to nature. Are they included in, or excluded from it? Do they, or do they not, form a part of it? If they are included in nature, then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a God, beyond those on which the author reasons. If they are excluded, then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion. Our reasonings respecting God are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature, but on man, his reason, his conscience, and his will. What makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man, as well as the forces and laws of the material universe.[pg 104]As far as the physical universe is concerned, the mind infers the existence of a God from its order and its harmonies; that is to say, having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation, and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source, we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves. Such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only, but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own self-conscious being. But the intelligence which produces order, as far as we are cognisant of it, is invariably united with will. We therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature, not simply the conception of a God, such as the God of pantheism; but, if they are valid to prove anything at all, of a God who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order, and of purpose adequate for its production. If the inference of the existence of a God from the works of nature is valid, it must be of a God possessed of the attributes in question, for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason.It is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law; that is to say, we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation. But WE, that is the reasoning, rational beings, whether existing in nature or outside it, have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind, and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will. If our reasoning from the order of the material universe is[pg 105]valid to prove the presence of mind, which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves, it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition, for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes. The material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind; but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one. But if our minds form part of nature, then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe. If they are outside nature, then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature,i.e.above the physical forces of the universe. It follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will, exist within nature or without it, a God who possesses similar powers may exist also.In a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature,i.e.matter and its phenomena, only informs us of the presence of mind in nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. But let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement. We learn the presence of mind, not from material nature, but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote. This is overlooked in the above argument. It is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance, we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature. In fact we do not see mind at all, but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason; and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind.The writer before me is one of those who affirm that[pg 106]the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature, in which he includes every species of vital organism, is the presence of order and harmony; and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation, contrivance and design is invalid. I reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind. But we also observe in natural phenomena, and above all in animal and vegetable structures, that the results effected are produced, not by simple forces, but by the careful adjustment of many, or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another, and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place. Had any of these occurred otherwise, the result would have been different. Throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result. This we usually designate by the word“adaptation.”Adaptation implies intelligence and purpose. We are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature, as any other quality whatever, even the possession of mind.I fully concede that natural phenomena and even the phenomena of the mind of man, only testify directly to the existence of a power adequate to their production, and that we cannot directly infer from them the presence of omnipotence. But this is to quarrel about words. For the power manifested in nature and in man is so great that the human mind can make no distinction between it and omnipotence; or in other words, it justly infers from its manifestations that the power which could originate this universe and all things in it must be capable of effecting anything which is possible.[pg 107]To this mind, whether in or out of nature, our reason ascribes the attributes of intelligence and will. Such a power it is incapable of conceiving as inherent in material forces; it therefore assumes that this power exists outside nature, and is capable of controlling it.It follows therefore that the reasoning is fallacious, which asserts that the conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception which we must seek from revelation, and cannot be arrived at by any exertion of our rational powers on the facts of nature and of man. Its apparent plausibility has arisen solely from ignoring the presence of man, either in nature or outside it, and neglecting to take the facts of human nature, man's reason, conscience and will, into consideration. To affirm that, independently of man's moral and intellectual being, physical nature, its forces and laws, can prove nothing, is a simple platitude. We have not to go to revelation for the principles on which we reason, but to man, and the phenomena of his rational, self-conscious, and voluntary agency. It follows, therefore, that the affirmation that in conducting the Christian argument we reason from God to miracles and from miracles to God, is utterly disproved. Yet the writer before me has ventured to affirm that, when we commence with the being of a personal God as the groundwork of our reasonings, we begin and end with a bare assumption.The philosophical writings of Dr. Mansel are also pressed into the service for the purpose of discrediting the evidences of Christianity, and, I own, with considerably greater reason. Mr. Herbert Spencer has also invoked them in confirmation of his theory that God is unknown and unknowable. He refers to them[pg 108]in the following words:“Here I cannot do better than avail myself of the demonstration which Mr. Mansel, carrying out in detail the doctrine of Sir W. Hamilton, has given us in his‘Limits of Religious Thought.’And I gladly do this, not only because his mode of presentation cannot be improved, but because writing as he does in defence of current theology, his reasonings will be more acceptable to the majority of readers.”Before referring to Dr. Mansel as an unquestionable authority on this subject, it would only have been candid in both writers to have informed their readers that not only have his principles been repudiated by a considerable number of Christian writers as unsound, but they have been carefully examined by that eminent atheistic philosopher, Mr. Mill, who gives it as his deliberate opinion that they are founded on fallacious principles. It is absurd to urge principles, though they have been maintained by an eminent Christian writer, which an eminent unbeliever has pronounced unsound, as a clear and conclusive argument against Christianity.The work of Dr. Mansel may be described as an attempt to prove the truth of Christianity on the principles of the most sceptical philosophy. It may be briefly stated thus: Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God as He is, whether as the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause. All the conceptions which we can frame on the subject are mutually self-destructive. On similar principles our conceptions of His moral attributes are wholly inadequate to inform us of His real perfections. It by no means follows that our human conception of benevolence or justice is a measure of the divine benevolence, or of divine justice; and so of His other attributes. It is affirmed that because they[pg 109]are the attributes of an infinite Being, they lie beyond the possibility of being realized in human thought. Consequently, holiness in God may admit of very different manifestations from holiness in man. Upon these principles, which affirm the inadequacy of the human intellect, even to conceive of anything as it exists in God, it follows that our only possible conceptions of God are relative; or, to use the word chosen by the author in relation to Christianity, regulative;i.e.fitted to regulate our conduct, but not to illuminate our understanding.Upon the assumption that reason, when it attempts to analyse our ideas of the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause, lands us in hopeless contradictions, Dr. Mansel arrives at the conclusion that it is incapable of forming any conception of God as he actually exists. It follows as a necessary consequence from this, that even by revelation we are only capable of attaining relative ideas of Him, and that these relative ideas do not represent His real nature, but are only regulative of conduct,i.e.we are to act upon them as if they were true.E.g.God is revealed as holy. Our only conception of holiness is our human conception of it. But we cannot know that this is an adequate measure of the divine holiness. God is declared to be benevolent. We have no conception of benevolence but that which is derived from the human mind. So likewise with respect to justice. But benevolence and justice as they exist in God may differ from these qualities as they exist in man. The same thing follows as a necessary conclusion from Dr. Mansel's premises with respect to all the other attributes of God. Nothing will better illustrate the position to which this argument reduces us than to apply it to the truthfulness or veracity of God. All that we know about truthfulness[pg 110]is as it exists in finite beings, that is, in men. But God is an infinite being. It follows therefore that truthfulness in man is no adequate representation of truthfulness as it exists in God, that is to say, that the divine veracity may differ from our human conception of it. This is certainly a very startling position.If, therefore, these principles are correct, acquiescence on the part of man in the divine character is impossible. It is impossible to love a being who does not present to us the aspect of loveliness; or to reverence one who does not present to us an aspect capable of exciting this emotion; or to feel trust in a being of whose justice we have no certainty that it resembles our conception of justice; or to rely on the promises of one whose veracity may differ from our own. Such feelings cannot be made to order. They can only be generated by the contemplation of a being who is holy, benevolent, just, and true, in the ordinary acceptation of these words. They cannot be excited by any merely regulative ideas. We love, reverence, and trust, not ideas or conceptions, but persons, possessing moral attributes. But on the principle of merely regulative ideas of God, the assertion that“God is love,”loses all its value, if God is not what I mean by love, but, because he is infinite, he may be something else, I know not what; and thus the great precept of the moral law,“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength,”becomes meaningless. Such devotion of our entire nature cannot be created by the mere command to render it. It can only be rendered to a being whose claims over us we both feel and know to be an absolute reality, and to whom on the conviction of their reality we can offer ourselves up a voluntary sacrifice. But if we cannot know Him as He is, how is the fire of devotion to Him[pg 111]to be kindled in our hearts? How shall we trust in Him? How shall we acquiesce in His character? How shall we worship Him, how shall we adore Him, if it is true that the justice, benevolence, or holiness of the divine character may not resemble our conception of them? Nay, more: the theory in question lays the axe to the root of the Christian revelation itself. There is no affirmation of the New Testament more decisive than that Jesus Christ in His divine and human personality is the image of the invisible God, as far as His moral perfections are concerned. Are the perfections of the character of Jesus Christ only regulative, or are they real representations of these attributes as they exist in God? Are the divine attributes of holiness, benevolence, or justice, adequately represented by the manifestations of them, as made by Jesus Christ? If we accept the testimony of St. John's Gospel, our Lord himself has expressly affirmed,“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”(John xiv. 9). But this is impossible if our conceptions of God's moral attributes are only regulative, and if the human idea of holiness is no adequate representation of the divine.However erroneous a system may be, yet if it has been elaborated by a powerful mind, it has generally some foundation in reason, and I am far from affirming that, with considerable qualifications, some important elements of truth may not be found in that of Dr. Mansel. It is well that we should be made to feel that there are limits of thought beyond which the human mind cannot penetrate, and that there are profundities of metaphysics which an imperfect measuring-line cannot reach. But placing the matter as he has, the Christian apologist may well feel indebted to Mr. Mill for his crushing demolition of the dangerous portions of Dr. Mansel's system. When unbelievers quote the[pg 112]authority of Dr. Mansel, why do they not also tell their readers that there was at least one unbeliever of very high logical power, who wrote against the validity of his system.It is one thing to affirm that we cannot penetrate to the depths of the Deity, and that after we have raised our thoughts to the highest, there is something higher still; and quite another to affirm that our highest thoughts of him have no validity; or, to use the terms of a fashionable philosophy, that God is unknown and unknowable, that no true conception of Him can be formed in thought; in one word, that he is absolutely unthinkable. The difficulties of this subject have arisen mainly from discussing it in terms of pure abstractions, instead of embodying them in a concrete form. It is impossible in this place to enter on the profound depths involved in these questions; but a few observations will be necessary for the purpose of clearing away the difficulties in which our opponents seek to involve the subject of miracles. I shall confine myself to our conceptions of the Infinite.It is affirmed that no conception of the infinite can be framed in thought; that it is therefore unthinkable, and transcends the limits of human knowledge; that it is a negation; and that therefore our reason is unable to affirm anything respecting it; that the idea of personality is incompatible with that of infinity; and that therefore when we speak of God as a person who possesses infinite perfections, we enter on a region where human thought is invalid, and respecting which all affirmation involves a contradiction.But when we are told that the infinite transcends thought, we are entitled to demand that we should not be kept playing with an abstraction, and to ask, what is infinite? In what sense does it transcend thought?[pg 113]Does this mean that it is absolutely unthinkable; or only partially so; or that our conception of it is imperfect? Is it simply unknowable, or does it consist of something which we know,plussomething that has not come within the limits of our knowledge, but which something is of a similar character to the known? It will be at once seen that the determination of these questions is at the root of the whole controversy. If then by the infinite we mean something knownplussomething unknown, to speak of God as unknowable and unthinkable is absurd. Our knowledge of Him may not be full, but yet real so far as it goes. When it is affirmed that God is a being who exists, but is unthinkable by man, the effect is to place Him beyond the bounds of human knowledge, and thereby free us from all necessity of troubling ourselves about Him. We know that He exists in the profundities of the unknown; and that is all. For the purposes of thought and of morality, He is thus made of less value than an algebraicx.When it is affirmed that the infinite is unknowable, I again ask, what infinite? The infinite as an abstract idea has no real existence; but something that is infinite. The conception itself is an essentially quantitative conception, and is only strictly applicable to number and extension. When I speak therefore of an infinite number, what do I mean? The only answer possible is,“The greatest number I can conceive,plusall possible number without limit.”Does my adding on the latter factor invalidate the reality of my conception of the former? Is that which is added on anything else than number? Surely here I have a valid conception. The same is true when we speak of the infinity of space. I mean by it the greatest space I can conceive,plusspace without limit. Is the idea of space[pg 114]rendered unthinkable, because I add the conception of space without limit? Does it cease to be space? But space is conceivable. It follows therefore that neither infinite number nor infinite extension is absolutely unthinkable. We speak of the infinite divisibility of matter. Does matter, because it goes on to be divided for ever, cease to be matter?In the same manner we speak of God, and call Him infinite. It would be far more correct to speak of Him as a Being who has infinite attributes. Here, however, if accuracy of thought is to be preserved, a distinction must be made. Some attributes of God may be viewed as quantitative; others cannot. It is to the former only that the term infinite properly applies. A moral attribute cannot have a quantitative measure applied to it. It is therefore not infinite, but perfect.When we speak of God as a being possessed of infinite power, what do we mean? The thing intended is, that He is a being who possesses such power as enabled Him to create the universe, and that He is capable of exerting every other degree of power which is possible. We may call this, if we like, power without limit; though there is always one limit to possible power, viz., that of working contradictions. Of course we are ignorant of what are the limits of possible power.But when we make this addition to our finite conception, we mean by it power similar to that exhibited in the universe—it and all other power beyond it. Must such a conception be banished outside the limits of rational thought? Is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to build the universe, and all possible power besides, unthinkable? Again, we speak of God as infinitely wise. What do we mean by it? We affirm that He knows all things actual and possible.[pg 115]The knowledge is none the less knowledge, because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge of the possible. Such a being is certainly not unthinkable.Again: God is often spoken of, not only as a being possessing infinite attributes and perfections, but as the Infinite Being. Here the attempt is made to entangle us in a puzzle. It is argued: if He be the infinite Being, there can be no being beyond Him. He must therefore include all being, both actual and possible. If this be so, He must also include the finite, otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite being—or in other words, being without limit would not include all being, which is self-contradictory. Several other self-contradictions may be easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles.I reply that the term“Being”is used here in a sense so intensely abstract, that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which quantity can legitimately be predicated. Of material being we can affirm that it is quantitative, but of no other. The adding on the word“infinite,”and calling God the infinite Being, is to use words which have no validity as conceptions.But it is also common to speak of God's moral attributes as infinite, such as His benevolence, holiness, justice and truth. This again is inaccurate, and its result is to plunge us into hopeless confusion of thought. Such attributes admit of no quantitative measures. They are perfect, not infinite. To speak of God's truthfulness as infinite is simply absurd. A thing is true, or not true. A moral being is truthful or not truthful. Benevolence may be perfect or imperfect; but it cannot be measured by number or by line. These conceptions can only mean what we mean[pg 116]by them, and nothing else, even when applied to God, or we are attempting to pass off forged notes for genuine ones. The only possible additional idea which we introduce when thus ascribing them to God, is that in Him they are perfect, free from the imperfections with which they exist in us. To affirm that when we say that God is perfectly benevolent, or perfectly truthful, we introduce into the conception, as applied to Him, a new factor, beyond the meaning of benevolence and truthfulness as used in human language, and that this new factor can make the divine benevolence different from our human conception of it, or can lead God to actions which man can by no possibility view as benevolent or true; and then to say that God is benevolent or true, is an abuse of language, or, to use Mr. Mill's words, an offensive flattery.But it has been urged that the moral attributes of God, even if we view them not as infinite but as perfect, must be beyond the limits of human thought, and therefore may produce results different in character from the corresponding principles in man, because they are the attributes of an infinite being. I have already disposed of this objection. Benevolence, holiness, and truth cannot be other than benevolence, holiness, and truth, to whatever being we may attribute them.It is therefore no necessary consequence, because we ascribe to God some attributes which are infinite, and others which are perfect, that God must therefore be unknowable or unthinkable. We may know much about Him, without knowing all things. Our not knowing all about things does not render them either unknowable or unthinkable. Our knowledge may be imperfect; but as far as it goes it maybe real. If we were to affirm that we only know that which we[pg 117]know perfectly, or were unable to reason on imperfect knowledge, mental progress would be brought to a standstill. Nor is it right to affirm that we are only reasoning in a circle when we reason from His moral attributes as displayed in the government of the world in favour of the probability of a revelation; or if because a revelation which claims to be from God, bears the impress of His character, we employ this fact as an evidence that it comes from Him. To affirm that He is unknowable or unthinkable is to proclaim that man has no concern with God, and that all revelation is impossible; therefore, the objections urged against the evidence of supernatural religion on these grounds are untenable.But there are the difficulties about the Absolute and the First Cause. It has been urged that the Absolute is that which is out of relation to every thing else—perfectly independent in itself. It is argued, therefore, if God be this Absolute, he cannot be the first Cause, because a cause can only be a cause by its being in relation to that of which it is the cause. For similar reasons, if he be the first Cause, He cannot be the Absolute. But as He is both, He must therefore be unknowable and unthinkable.It is impossible in a treatise like this to enter into such profound metaphysical questions. For my present purpose, I can safely refer to Mr. Mill's discussion on this subject. As far as the views in question bear adversely on Christian evidence, he has sufficiently refuted them. It is not fair for unbelievers to put forth these positions as subversive of Christianity, without answering the reasonings of so eminent an unbeliever as Mr. Mill in proof of their inconclusiveness, or even alluding to the fact that he has pronounced them untenable.There is no point which reasoners of this class have[pg 118]laboured more diligently to prove than that it is impossible for human reason to think of God as a person. The assumption of the personality of God is the foundation of the Christian argument, without which, even if the occurrence of miracles could be proved as objective facts, they would have no evidential value. It follows, therefore, that if our only mode of attaining the knowledge of the personality of God be from revelation, we are arguing in a vicious circle.Briefly stated, the argument of unbelief is as follows: God is the infinite Being. Personality is a conception which necessarily involves the finite. Therefore it cannot be predicated of an infinite Being. It follows therefore that to speak of God as infinite, and at the same time as a person, involves a contradiction.It is an unquestionable fact that the only beings whom we are directly acquainted with as persons are finite beings,i.e.men. No less certain is it that the only beings whom we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are finite beings,i.e.men, and those various classes of animals by which the latter quality is manifested. The argument is equally valid for proving that wisdom and intelligence can only belong to finite beings; and consequently that the existence of wisdom and intelligence in the first Cause of all things is inconceivable, and the assumption that He is wise and intelligent is a contradiction. The same argument is no less valid against ascribing any moral perfection to Him, or in fact any other, for all our knowledge of such things is both in itself finite, and derived from finite beings.But it even goes further than this. If, as the positive philosophy lays down, our real knowledge of things is confined to direct subjects of cognition; as the only beings which we know to be possessed of wisdom and[pg 119]intelligence are men and animals, it is quite contrary to sound reasoning to infer that these qualities can be possessed by any other class of finite beings. To do so is to transfer human conceptions to beings who are not human. Equally valid would be the reasoning of an animal, if he could reason on the subject, as for instance a horse or a dog, that the existence of wisdom and intelligence beyond his own limited sphere was an unwarrantable assumption. Pantheists have also propounded theories on the assumption of the existence in nature of an unconscious wisdom and intelligence. This assumption is open to the most formidable objections; but even on their own principles it is utterly invalid; for if on the grounds which they allege it is impossible to ascribe personality to God, the same reasonings are equally valid against ascribing wisdom and intelligence to unconscious nature.I conclude, therefore, that it by no means follows because our direct knowledge of personality is confined to human beings, and is derived from them, that personality itself cannot be conceived of as a property belonging to any other than human beings. It is absurd to maintain that the qualities of things must be confined to those things from which we learn their existence.But it will be objected that the very essential notion of personality is limitation; consequently that although it may be conceived of as belonging to limited beings, it transcends the power of thought to conceive of it as the attribute of a being who is unlimited or infinite; that is to say, that although it lies within the power of thought to conceive of the Being who had adequate power to build the universe as a Person, because the power may be a limited power, yet when I ascribe to Him beyond this the possession of all possible power,[pg 120]the conception of personality becomes unthinkable. This is the real meaning of the affirmation, unless our reasonings are to be confined within the region of abstractions. But we have no assurance that such reasonings are valid, unless we can bring them to the test of some concrete form of thought.Next: It by no means follows because our conception of personality is derived from finite beings, that it is necessarily limited to them; and that it cannot be thought of in connection with a being, some of whose attributes are infinite and others perfect; in other words, that the idea of finiteness is necessarily involved in that of personality. What are the conceptions that make up the idea of our own personality? I reply, the power to affirm“I”of one's own being—the possession of will—the power of self-consciousness, and these in union with rationality. These conceptions we undoubtedly derive from the contemplation of our own finite being, but there is nothing in them which is necessarily limited to the finite. If the conception of an infinite being is possible (and the fact that it is so constantly introduced into this controversy proves that it is possible), then there is no reason why these conceptions, which certainly contain in them nothing quantitative, should not be applicable to such a being. The real fact is, these conceptions are not inherently finite, because they have nothing in them of a quantitative character,—they are only derived from a being whose manifestation in space we conceive of under the form of limitation, and whose attributes are neither infinite nor perfect.I must call attention to the remark already made that the correct representation of God in thought is not that of a pure abstraction, the infinite Being, but of a being who possesses attributes, some of which are[pg 121]infinite and others perfect. To affirm that such a being is a person, is not to attempt to think that which is unthinkable. When we affirm that God possesses the power adequate to build the universe, and all possible power beside, we do not ascribe to Him that of which it is impossible to predicate the possession of will or self-consciousness. When we affirm that such a being exists now, that he has existed in all past known times, and that no limits in point of time are conceivable of him, there is nothing contradictory in ascribing to such a Being personality. It is quite thinkable that an ultimate particle may never have had a beginning and never will have an end; no less so is it that such a particle may be possessed of personality, for it is finite. Surely therefore there is nothing in the ascription to God of existence without beginning and without end, which destroys the idea of His personality.It has been necessary to enter thus far into this subject, because in reasoning on the Christian revelation we must assume the existence of a personal God, unless all such treatises, in addition to their own proper subject-matter, must likewise contain an elaborate work on the principles of theism, and a refutation of those of pantheism and atheism. The defender of Christianity is charged with reasoning in a circle, as though he first assumed the existence of a personal God, and then derived the idea of his existence from revelation. This charge would undoubtedly be true if the idea of God being a person is unthinkable. I am at a loss to conceive how it becomes one atom more thinkable if communicated by a revelation. Much obscurity has undoubtedly been thrown on this subject by Christian writers who have fancied that the more they can invalidate our reason the greater gain accrues to Revelation. This is not only unwise but irrational. Our[pg 122]reason doubtless is but an imperfect light, but its extinction is to leave us to grope in darkness. I affirm therefore that the assumption of the divine personality as the groundwork of our argument involves nopetitio principii, or reasoning in a circle.One more remark and I will bring this portion of the subject to a close. The affirmation made by this philosophy that certain things are unthinkable is fallacious. What do we mean by“unthinkable”? It may mean many things; first, that the subject cannot be made in any sense an object of thought. This, in fact, is the only legitimate use of the word. But in this sense the affirmation cannot be true of even Mr. Herbert Spencer's unknown and unknowable God, for it is evident that he does manage to reason and think about him somehow. It may mean a being respecting whom we may know much and attain a knowledge continually progressing, but respecting whom there is much which is unknown. This unknown is called unthinkable. But it is not unthinkable. It has only not yet become the subject of our knowledge, and is no more unthinkable than any other unknown truth. Or that may be pronounced to be unthinkable respecting which our conceptions are wanting in definiteness and precision. But to designate such things as unthinkable is an abuse of language. Or that may be designated as unthinkable of which our conceptions fail fully to represent the reality. As far as they go, they may be true, but there may be something beyond of a similar kind, which they do not embrace. This is the only sense in which it can be affirmed that God is unthinkable, but the assertion is altogether misleading. The only correct meaning of the expression is when some particular thing is affirmed to exist and at the same time contradictions co-exist in it. The actual co-existence[pg 123]of these two contradictions is unthinkable, but nothing more. Thus the existence of a round square is unthinkable, so would the affirmation that the divine power was at the same time both limited and unlimited. But in no other sense is a conception unthinkable. To affirm that the cause of all things is unthinkable because our conceptions of Him do not measure the entire depths of His being is simply misleading.I have gone into this question because it is evident that if God is unthinkable a revelation of Him is impossible, and if a revelation of Him is impossible, all miracles affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of one must be delusions.

The proof onà priorigrounds that an event is either possible or probable, cannot establish that it has actually occurred. This must rest on its own particular evidence. To prove that a revelation is both possible and probable, and that it ought to be evidenced by miracles, may form an essential portion of our general argument, because the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular fact affects the amount of positive evidence necessary to establish its truth. But the proof that a revelation has actually been given, or a miracle wrought, can only be effected through the same media as those through which other facts are established. To prove that a revelation is probable will not be of the smallest avail to prove that one has been actually given, without adequate proof of the fact itself.

Still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important, because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible. If this can be demonstrated, the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers; for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible. It[pg 096]may be assumed, however, that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings; because, after having demonstrated, as they allege, that miracles are impossible, they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the Gospels, and pronounce it worthless. As, therefore, the opponents of Christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible, it is necessary that the defender of Christianity should examine the validity of the assertion.

Our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle, or assuming the fact which ought to be proved. To avoid even the appearance of this, I lay down the following positions:—

If direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the Universe, it follows that a divine revelation is impossible. Nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so, because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature, but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will. With the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible, because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena, the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past. Still the occurrence of a fact, however extraordinary, would not constitute a miracle, and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe, or the predominance of chance.

The same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no God exists, but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one.

Nor is the case altogether different with regard to[pg 097]pantheism. According to this system, God is only another name for nature, which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious self-evolution. The essence of its affirmation is, that God has no conscious personal existence, but that He is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe. Such a being (if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all, or as a unity) is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena, the result of the blind action of its inherent forces. But to whom? Obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness, whom it (I dare not say, He) has evolved out of its own bosom, and will again resolve into unconsciousness. Prior to their evolution this mighty τὸ πᾶν must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself, without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them. Whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view, it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe, a revelation and miracles, in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning, are impossible.

No less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by Mr. Herbert Spencer, which, while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things, as alike required by the demands of philosophy, science, and religion, yet affirms that He is unknown and unknowable, and that every thing which is knowable, although a manifestation of that great unknown cause, yet conveys no idea of Him that the intellect can apprehend. In one word, the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable, and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought. The intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things; but all that it can affirm of him is, that He is unknown and unknowable;[pg 098]and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge, though it may represent some mode of his existence, cannot be he, or like him. With respect to this theory, while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism, it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing God out of the universe, of which He is alleged to be the cause. He can neither be a person, nor have wisdom, nor be benevolent, nor be capable of conscious self-manifestation; because all these conceptions are limited and finite. All that we can know of Him is, that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena; and that we are condemned respecting Him, to a profound and perpetual ignorance. It is possible to designate such a being by the name of God, but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it. Such a God is a bare abstract conception of the intellect, void of all moral value. It is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself. Consequently St. Paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown God at Athens,“Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you”(Acts xvii. 23), is untrue. To such a God a revelation of Himself, and miracles to confirm it, are alike impossible.

It is evident, therefore, that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things, all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless. Let us take the most favourable hypothesis, that of Mr. Spencer. It concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things, which may be called God. But He is unknowable; He is inscrutable. No conception of[pg 099]Him can be realized in thought; it follows, therefore, that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man, for if a revelation of Him could be made, He cannot be unknowable. This being so, the person who attempts to reason out the truth of Christianity is placed under a difficulty. Christianity assumes the existence of a personal God, possessed of moral attributes. This is the very truth, the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting. The Christian advocate, therefore, has only two courses before him: First, To assume, in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind, that a personal God exists; and then to argue for the truth of Christianity, and to answer the objections urged against it. When we do this, objectors affirm that we beg the question. Or, Secondly, To prove the existence of a personal God; and then to argue for the truth of revelation. If he adopts the latter course, he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests, and to answer the objections to it—or, in other words, to compose a bulky volume, before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry.

Now I affirm that the defender of Christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal God as the foundation of his reasonings, than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is, who takes for granted the truth of Euclid's propositions.

The author of the work to which I have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of Christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions. I will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject, but I trust I shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded. I must briefly notice a few of his reasonings.

At page 68 he writes as follows:“Dr. Mozley is well aware that the assumption of a‘personal’God is not susceptible of proof; indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption.”

An assumption, I ask, in what sense? Is it a simple assumption without evidence, taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument; or is it one which, though taken for granted in the present case, rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established, and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of Euclid do to those of trigonometry? The latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former. Without referring to the authority of any particular author, is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a Personal God rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason? Have not numbers of men, endowed with the highest powers of intellect, accepted it as satisfactory? Yet he seeks to imply that, after all, it is an assumption. It is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted; but we do so, because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason.

I admit that Dr. Mozley has used, in speaking of this subject, language which I cannot but think is wanting in precision. Still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it.“It is then to be admitted,”says he,“that historically, and looking to the general actual reception of it, this conception of God was derived from revelation. Not from the first dawn of history to the spread of Christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a Being.”The learned author then states, at considerable length, the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of God, and shows their inadequacy and[pg 101]imperfection, and concludes as follows:“But although this conception of the Deity has been received through the channel of the Bible, what communicates a truth is one thing, what proves it is another.”He then proceeds to summarize the general proof.

I cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity. Whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied, there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of God, though indefinite and indistinct, underlay them all. The most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a Supreme God above all the degraded objects of his worship. It seems to me impossible that such a conception of God can have been attained from revelation. It may, in a certain sense, be said, looking at the precise form in which it is embodied, that it has been derived by us historically from the Jewish race. But it must have had a prior origin. St. Paul considered that the material universe manifested His eternal power and Godhead. The primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of God. It is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the Bible. It is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the Bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge, but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof, and whose only basis is conjecture. Judaism and Christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the Deity and dissipating false ones. Yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly, no formal revelation could have put it there, for every such revelation must be conveyed in language, and all language is meaningless, unless the mind can realize its conceptions. The assertion,[pg 102]therefore, that the conception of God has been first communicated through the channel of the Bible, and is afterwards proved by reason, seems to me to be one not devoid of danger. On the contrary, our belief that God exists is the very pre-condition of our being able to believe that He has revealed Himself. This conception revelation may modify, invest with a higher moral character, and import into it definiteness and precision, but it cannot create it. It is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of Christianity in a vicious circle. I fully admit that the conception of God has been elevated and purified by the influence of Christianity, and that the teaching of Christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason. But it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle, and that the Christian argument involves reasoning from Theism to Christianity and from Christianity back to Theism.

The following passage, cited by Professor Mozley from Baden Powell, is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation, and from revelation to reason. The passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge, and requires our careful consideration.“Everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God; but in acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature a mind, a universal mind, but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. Nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a[pg 103]universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing; and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And therefore that conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature, to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere. That conception is attained from revelation, which is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism.”

It will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage.

First: The author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces, laws, and phenomena of the physical universe, and for these alone. To this I have no objection, for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning. But while he uses it thus, he nowhere tells us in what relation man, including his faculties, intellectual and moral, and above all, his will, stands to nature. Are they included in, or excluded from it? Do they, or do they not, form a part of it? If they are included in nature, then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a God, beyond those on which the author reasons. If they are excluded, then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion. Our reasonings respecting God are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature, but on man, his reason, his conscience, and his will. What makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man, as well as the forces and laws of the material universe.

As far as the physical universe is concerned, the mind infers the existence of a God from its order and its harmonies; that is to say, having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation, and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source, we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves. Such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only, but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own self-conscious being. But the intelligence which produces order, as far as we are cognisant of it, is invariably united with will. We therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature, not simply the conception of a God, such as the God of pantheism; but, if they are valid to prove anything at all, of a God who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order, and of purpose adequate for its production. If the inference of the existence of a God from the works of nature is valid, it must be of a God possessed of the attributes in question, for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason.

It is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law; that is to say, we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation. But WE, that is the reasoning, rational beings, whether existing in nature or outside it, have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind, and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will. If our reasoning from the order of the material universe is[pg 105]valid to prove the presence of mind, which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves, it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition, for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes. The material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind; but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one. But if our minds form part of nature, then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe. If they are outside nature, then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature,i.e.above the physical forces of the universe. It follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will, exist within nature or without it, a God who possesses similar powers may exist also.

In a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature,i.e.matter and its phenomena, only informs us of the presence of mind in nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. But let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement. We learn the presence of mind, not from material nature, but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote. This is overlooked in the above argument. It is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance, we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature. In fact we do not see mind at all, but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason; and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind.

The writer before me is one of those who affirm that[pg 106]the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature, in which he includes every species of vital organism, is the presence of order and harmony; and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation, contrivance and design is invalid. I reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind. But we also observe in natural phenomena, and above all in animal and vegetable structures, that the results effected are produced, not by simple forces, but by the careful adjustment of many, or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another, and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place. Had any of these occurred otherwise, the result would have been different. Throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result. This we usually designate by the word“adaptation.”Adaptation implies intelligence and purpose. We are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature, as any other quality whatever, even the possession of mind.

I fully concede that natural phenomena and even the phenomena of the mind of man, only testify directly to the existence of a power adequate to their production, and that we cannot directly infer from them the presence of omnipotence. But this is to quarrel about words. For the power manifested in nature and in man is so great that the human mind can make no distinction between it and omnipotence; or in other words, it justly infers from its manifestations that the power which could originate this universe and all things in it must be capable of effecting anything which is possible.[pg 107]To this mind, whether in or out of nature, our reason ascribes the attributes of intelligence and will. Such a power it is incapable of conceiving as inherent in material forces; it therefore assumes that this power exists outside nature, and is capable of controlling it.

It follows therefore that the reasoning is fallacious, which asserts that the conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception which we must seek from revelation, and cannot be arrived at by any exertion of our rational powers on the facts of nature and of man. Its apparent plausibility has arisen solely from ignoring the presence of man, either in nature or outside it, and neglecting to take the facts of human nature, man's reason, conscience and will, into consideration. To affirm that, independently of man's moral and intellectual being, physical nature, its forces and laws, can prove nothing, is a simple platitude. We have not to go to revelation for the principles on which we reason, but to man, and the phenomena of his rational, self-conscious, and voluntary agency. It follows, therefore, that the affirmation that in conducting the Christian argument we reason from God to miracles and from miracles to God, is utterly disproved. Yet the writer before me has ventured to affirm that, when we commence with the being of a personal God as the groundwork of our reasonings, we begin and end with a bare assumption.

The philosophical writings of Dr. Mansel are also pressed into the service for the purpose of discrediting the evidences of Christianity, and, I own, with considerably greater reason. Mr. Herbert Spencer has also invoked them in confirmation of his theory that God is unknown and unknowable. He refers to them[pg 108]in the following words:“Here I cannot do better than avail myself of the demonstration which Mr. Mansel, carrying out in detail the doctrine of Sir W. Hamilton, has given us in his‘Limits of Religious Thought.’And I gladly do this, not only because his mode of presentation cannot be improved, but because writing as he does in defence of current theology, his reasonings will be more acceptable to the majority of readers.”

Before referring to Dr. Mansel as an unquestionable authority on this subject, it would only have been candid in both writers to have informed their readers that not only have his principles been repudiated by a considerable number of Christian writers as unsound, but they have been carefully examined by that eminent atheistic philosopher, Mr. Mill, who gives it as his deliberate opinion that they are founded on fallacious principles. It is absurd to urge principles, though they have been maintained by an eminent Christian writer, which an eminent unbeliever has pronounced unsound, as a clear and conclusive argument against Christianity.

The work of Dr. Mansel may be described as an attempt to prove the truth of Christianity on the principles of the most sceptical philosophy. It may be briefly stated thus: Reason is incapable of forming any idea of God as He is, whether as the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause. All the conceptions which we can frame on the subject are mutually self-destructive. On similar principles our conceptions of His moral attributes are wholly inadequate to inform us of His real perfections. It by no means follows that our human conception of benevolence or justice is a measure of the divine benevolence, or of divine justice; and so of His other attributes. It is affirmed that because they[pg 109]are the attributes of an infinite Being, they lie beyond the possibility of being realized in human thought. Consequently, holiness in God may admit of very different manifestations from holiness in man. Upon these principles, which affirm the inadequacy of the human intellect, even to conceive of anything as it exists in God, it follows that our only possible conceptions of God are relative; or, to use the word chosen by the author in relation to Christianity, regulative;i.e.fitted to regulate our conduct, but not to illuminate our understanding.

Upon the assumption that reason, when it attempts to analyse our ideas of the Infinite, the Absolute, or the first Cause, lands us in hopeless contradictions, Dr. Mansel arrives at the conclusion that it is incapable of forming any conception of God as he actually exists. It follows as a necessary consequence from this, that even by revelation we are only capable of attaining relative ideas of Him, and that these relative ideas do not represent His real nature, but are only regulative of conduct,i.e.we are to act upon them as if they were true.E.g.God is revealed as holy. Our only conception of holiness is our human conception of it. But we cannot know that this is an adequate measure of the divine holiness. God is declared to be benevolent. We have no conception of benevolence but that which is derived from the human mind. So likewise with respect to justice. But benevolence and justice as they exist in God may differ from these qualities as they exist in man. The same thing follows as a necessary conclusion from Dr. Mansel's premises with respect to all the other attributes of God. Nothing will better illustrate the position to which this argument reduces us than to apply it to the truthfulness or veracity of God. All that we know about truthfulness[pg 110]is as it exists in finite beings, that is, in men. But God is an infinite being. It follows therefore that truthfulness in man is no adequate representation of truthfulness as it exists in God, that is to say, that the divine veracity may differ from our human conception of it. This is certainly a very startling position.

If, therefore, these principles are correct, acquiescence on the part of man in the divine character is impossible. It is impossible to love a being who does not present to us the aspect of loveliness; or to reverence one who does not present to us an aspect capable of exciting this emotion; or to feel trust in a being of whose justice we have no certainty that it resembles our conception of justice; or to rely on the promises of one whose veracity may differ from our own. Such feelings cannot be made to order. They can only be generated by the contemplation of a being who is holy, benevolent, just, and true, in the ordinary acceptation of these words. They cannot be excited by any merely regulative ideas. We love, reverence, and trust, not ideas or conceptions, but persons, possessing moral attributes. But on the principle of merely regulative ideas of God, the assertion that“God is love,”loses all its value, if God is not what I mean by love, but, because he is infinite, he may be something else, I know not what; and thus the great precept of the moral law,“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength,”becomes meaningless. Such devotion of our entire nature cannot be created by the mere command to render it. It can only be rendered to a being whose claims over us we both feel and know to be an absolute reality, and to whom on the conviction of their reality we can offer ourselves up a voluntary sacrifice. But if we cannot know Him as He is, how is the fire of devotion to Him[pg 111]to be kindled in our hearts? How shall we trust in Him? How shall we acquiesce in His character? How shall we worship Him, how shall we adore Him, if it is true that the justice, benevolence, or holiness of the divine character may not resemble our conception of them? Nay, more: the theory in question lays the axe to the root of the Christian revelation itself. There is no affirmation of the New Testament more decisive than that Jesus Christ in His divine and human personality is the image of the invisible God, as far as His moral perfections are concerned. Are the perfections of the character of Jesus Christ only regulative, or are they real representations of these attributes as they exist in God? Are the divine attributes of holiness, benevolence, or justice, adequately represented by the manifestations of them, as made by Jesus Christ? If we accept the testimony of St. John's Gospel, our Lord himself has expressly affirmed,“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”(John xiv. 9). But this is impossible if our conceptions of God's moral attributes are only regulative, and if the human idea of holiness is no adequate representation of the divine.

However erroneous a system may be, yet if it has been elaborated by a powerful mind, it has generally some foundation in reason, and I am far from affirming that, with considerable qualifications, some important elements of truth may not be found in that of Dr. Mansel. It is well that we should be made to feel that there are limits of thought beyond which the human mind cannot penetrate, and that there are profundities of metaphysics which an imperfect measuring-line cannot reach. But placing the matter as he has, the Christian apologist may well feel indebted to Mr. Mill for his crushing demolition of the dangerous portions of Dr. Mansel's system. When unbelievers quote the[pg 112]authority of Dr. Mansel, why do they not also tell their readers that there was at least one unbeliever of very high logical power, who wrote against the validity of his system.

It is one thing to affirm that we cannot penetrate to the depths of the Deity, and that after we have raised our thoughts to the highest, there is something higher still; and quite another to affirm that our highest thoughts of him have no validity; or, to use the terms of a fashionable philosophy, that God is unknown and unknowable, that no true conception of Him can be formed in thought; in one word, that he is absolutely unthinkable. The difficulties of this subject have arisen mainly from discussing it in terms of pure abstractions, instead of embodying them in a concrete form. It is impossible in this place to enter on the profound depths involved in these questions; but a few observations will be necessary for the purpose of clearing away the difficulties in which our opponents seek to involve the subject of miracles. I shall confine myself to our conceptions of the Infinite.

It is affirmed that no conception of the infinite can be framed in thought; that it is therefore unthinkable, and transcends the limits of human knowledge; that it is a negation; and that therefore our reason is unable to affirm anything respecting it; that the idea of personality is incompatible with that of infinity; and that therefore when we speak of God as a person who possesses infinite perfections, we enter on a region where human thought is invalid, and respecting which all affirmation involves a contradiction.

But when we are told that the infinite transcends thought, we are entitled to demand that we should not be kept playing with an abstraction, and to ask, what is infinite? In what sense does it transcend thought?[pg 113]Does this mean that it is absolutely unthinkable; or only partially so; or that our conception of it is imperfect? Is it simply unknowable, or does it consist of something which we know,plussomething that has not come within the limits of our knowledge, but which something is of a similar character to the known? It will be at once seen that the determination of these questions is at the root of the whole controversy. If then by the infinite we mean something knownplussomething unknown, to speak of God as unknowable and unthinkable is absurd. Our knowledge of Him may not be full, but yet real so far as it goes. When it is affirmed that God is a being who exists, but is unthinkable by man, the effect is to place Him beyond the bounds of human knowledge, and thereby free us from all necessity of troubling ourselves about Him. We know that He exists in the profundities of the unknown; and that is all. For the purposes of thought and of morality, He is thus made of less value than an algebraicx.

When it is affirmed that the infinite is unknowable, I again ask, what infinite? The infinite as an abstract idea has no real existence; but something that is infinite. The conception itself is an essentially quantitative conception, and is only strictly applicable to number and extension. When I speak therefore of an infinite number, what do I mean? The only answer possible is,“The greatest number I can conceive,plusall possible number without limit.”Does my adding on the latter factor invalidate the reality of my conception of the former? Is that which is added on anything else than number? Surely here I have a valid conception. The same is true when we speak of the infinity of space. I mean by it the greatest space I can conceive,plusspace without limit. Is the idea of space[pg 114]rendered unthinkable, because I add the conception of space without limit? Does it cease to be space? But space is conceivable. It follows therefore that neither infinite number nor infinite extension is absolutely unthinkable. We speak of the infinite divisibility of matter. Does matter, because it goes on to be divided for ever, cease to be matter?

In the same manner we speak of God, and call Him infinite. It would be far more correct to speak of Him as a Being who has infinite attributes. Here, however, if accuracy of thought is to be preserved, a distinction must be made. Some attributes of God may be viewed as quantitative; others cannot. It is to the former only that the term infinite properly applies. A moral attribute cannot have a quantitative measure applied to it. It is therefore not infinite, but perfect.

When we speak of God as a being possessed of infinite power, what do we mean? The thing intended is, that He is a being who possesses such power as enabled Him to create the universe, and that He is capable of exerting every other degree of power which is possible. We may call this, if we like, power without limit; though there is always one limit to possible power, viz., that of working contradictions. Of course we are ignorant of what are the limits of possible power.

But when we make this addition to our finite conception, we mean by it power similar to that exhibited in the universe—it and all other power beyond it. Must such a conception be banished outside the limits of rational thought? Is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to build the universe, and all possible power besides, unthinkable? Again, we speak of God as infinitely wise. What do we mean by it? We affirm that He knows all things actual and possible.[pg 115]The knowledge is none the less knowledge, because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge of the possible. Such a being is certainly not unthinkable.

Again: God is often spoken of, not only as a being possessing infinite attributes and perfections, but as the Infinite Being. Here the attempt is made to entangle us in a puzzle. It is argued: if He be the infinite Being, there can be no being beyond Him. He must therefore include all being, both actual and possible. If this be so, He must also include the finite, otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite being—or in other words, being without limit would not include all being, which is self-contradictory. Several other self-contradictions may be easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles.

I reply that the term“Being”is used here in a sense so intensely abstract, that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which quantity can legitimately be predicated. Of material being we can affirm that it is quantitative, but of no other. The adding on the word“infinite,”and calling God the infinite Being, is to use words which have no validity as conceptions.

But it is also common to speak of God's moral attributes as infinite, such as His benevolence, holiness, justice and truth. This again is inaccurate, and its result is to plunge us into hopeless confusion of thought. Such attributes admit of no quantitative measures. They are perfect, not infinite. To speak of God's truthfulness as infinite is simply absurd. A thing is true, or not true. A moral being is truthful or not truthful. Benevolence may be perfect or imperfect; but it cannot be measured by number or by line. These conceptions can only mean what we mean[pg 116]by them, and nothing else, even when applied to God, or we are attempting to pass off forged notes for genuine ones. The only possible additional idea which we introduce when thus ascribing them to God, is that in Him they are perfect, free from the imperfections with which they exist in us. To affirm that when we say that God is perfectly benevolent, or perfectly truthful, we introduce into the conception, as applied to Him, a new factor, beyond the meaning of benevolence and truthfulness as used in human language, and that this new factor can make the divine benevolence different from our human conception of it, or can lead God to actions which man can by no possibility view as benevolent or true; and then to say that God is benevolent or true, is an abuse of language, or, to use Mr. Mill's words, an offensive flattery.

But it has been urged that the moral attributes of God, even if we view them not as infinite but as perfect, must be beyond the limits of human thought, and therefore may produce results different in character from the corresponding principles in man, because they are the attributes of an infinite being. I have already disposed of this objection. Benevolence, holiness, and truth cannot be other than benevolence, holiness, and truth, to whatever being we may attribute them.

It is therefore no necessary consequence, because we ascribe to God some attributes which are infinite, and others which are perfect, that God must therefore be unknowable or unthinkable. We may know much about Him, without knowing all things. Our not knowing all about things does not render them either unknowable or unthinkable. Our knowledge may be imperfect; but as far as it goes it maybe real. If we were to affirm that we only know that which we[pg 117]know perfectly, or were unable to reason on imperfect knowledge, mental progress would be brought to a standstill. Nor is it right to affirm that we are only reasoning in a circle when we reason from His moral attributes as displayed in the government of the world in favour of the probability of a revelation; or if because a revelation which claims to be from God, bears the impress of His character, we employ this fact as an evidence that it comes from Him. To affirm that He is unknowable or unthinkable is to proclaim that man has no concern with God, and that all revelation is impossible; therefore, the objections urged against the evidence of supernatural religion on these grounds are untenable.

But there are the difficulties about the Absolute and the First Cause. It has been urged that the Absolute is that which is out of relation to every thing else—perfectly independent in itself. It is argued, therefore, if God be this Absolute, he cannot be the first Cause, because a cause can only be a cause by its being in relation to that of which it is the cause. For similar reasons, if he be the first Cause, He cannot be the Absolute. But as He is both, He must therefore be unknowable and unthinkable.

It is impossible in a treatise like this to enter into such profound metaphysical questions. For my present purpose, I can safely refer to Mr. Mill's discussion on this subject. As far as the views in question bear adversely on Christian evidence, he has sufficiently refuted them. It is not fair for unbelievers to put forth these positions as subversive of Christianity, without answering the reasonings of so eminent an unbeliever as Mr. Mill in proof of their inconclusiveness, or even alluding to the fact that he has pronounced them untenable.

There is no point which reasoners of this class have[pg 118]laboured more diligently to prove than that it is impossible for human reason to think of God as a person. The assumption of the personality of God is the foundation of the Christian argument, without which, even if the occurrence of miracles could be proved as objective facts, they would have no evidential value. It follows, therefore, that if our only mode of attaining the knowledge of the personality of God be from revelation, we are arguing in a vicious circle.

Briefly stated, the argument of unbelief is as follows: God is the infinite Being. Personality is a conception which necessarily involves the finite. Therefore it cannot be predicated of an infinite Being. It follows therefore that to speak of God as infinite, and at the same time as a person, involves a contradiction.

It is an unquestionable fact that the only beings whom we are directly acquainted with as persons are finite beings,i.e.men. No less certain is it that the only beings whom we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are finite beings,i.e.men, and those various classes of animals by which the latter quality is manifested. The argument is equally valid for proving that wisdom and intelligence can only belong to finite beings; and consequently that the existence of wisdom and intelligence in the first Cause of all things is inconceivable, and the assumption that He is wise and intelligent is a contradiction. The same argument is no less valid against ascribing any moral perfection to Him, or in fact any other, for all our knowledge of such things is both in itself finite, and derived from finite beings.

But it even goes further than this. If, as the positive philosophy lays down, our real knowledge of things is confined to direct subjects of cognition; as the only beings which we know to be possessed of wisdom and[pg 119]intelligence are men and animals, it is quite contrary to sound reasoning to infer that these qualities can be possessed by any other class of finite beings. To do so is to transfer human conceptions to beings who are not human. Equally valid would be the reasoning of an animal, if he could reason on the subject, as for instance a horse or a dog, that the existence of wisdom and intelligence beyond his own limited sphere was an unwarrantable assumption. Pantheists have also propounded theories on the assumption of the existence in nature of an unconscious wisdom and intelligence. This assumption is open to the most formidable objections; but even on their own principles it is utterly invalid; for if on the grounds which they allege it is impossible to ascribe personality to God, the same reasonings are equally valid against ascribing wisdom and intelligence to unconscious nature.

I conclude, therefore, that it by no means follows because our direct knowledge of personality is confined to human beings, and is derived from them, that personality itself cannot be conceived of as a property belonging to any other than human beings. It is absurd to maintain that the qualities of things must be confined to those things from which we learn their existence.

But it will be objected that the very essential notion of personality is limitation; consequently that although it may be conceived of as belonging to limited beings, it transcends the power of thought to conceive of it as the attribute of a being who is unlimited or infinite; that is to say, that although it lies within the power of thought to conceive of the Being who had adequate power to build the universe as a Person, because the power may be a limited power, yet when I ascribe to Him beyond this the possession of all possible power,[pg 120]the conception of personality becomes unthinkable. This is the real meaning of the affirmation, unless our reasonings are to be confined within the region of abstractions. But we have no assurance that such reasonings are valid, unless we can bring them to the test of some concrete form of thought.

Next: It by no means follows because our conception of personality is derived from finite beings, that it is necessarily limited to them; and that it cannot be thought of in connection with a being, some of whose attributes are infinite and others perfect; in other words, that the idea of finiteness is necessarily involved in that of personality. What are the conceptions that make up the idea of our own personality? I reply, the power to affirm“I”of one's own being—the possession of will—the power of self-consciousness, and these in union with rationality. These conceptions we undoubtedly derive from the contemplation of our own finite being, but there is nothing in them which is necessarily limited to the finite. If the conception of an infinite being is possible (and the fact that it is so constantly introduced into this controversy proves that it is possible), then there is no reason why these conceptions, which certainly contain in them nothing quantitative, should not be applicable to such a being. The real fact is, these conceptions are not inherently finite, because they have nothing in them of a quantitative character,—they are only derived from a being whose manifestation in space we conceive of under the form of limitation, and whose attributes are neither infinite nor perfect.

I must call attention to the remark already made that the correct representation of God in thought is not that of a pure abstraction, the infinite Being, but of a being who possesses attributes, some of which are[pg 121]infinite and others perfect. To affirm that such a being is a person, is not to attempt to think that which is unthinkable. When we affirm that God possesses the power adequate to build the universe, and all possible power beside, we do not ascribe to Him that of which it is impossible to predicate the possession of will or self-consciousness. When we affirm that such a being exists now, that he has existed in all past known times, and that no limits in point of time are conceivable of him, there is nothing contradictory in ascribing to such a Being personality. It is quite thinkable that an ultimate particle may never have had a beginning and never will have an end; no less so is it that such a particle may be possessed of personality, for it is finite. Surely therefore there is nothing in the ascription to God of existence without beginning and without end, which destroys the idea of His personality.

It has been necessary to enter thus far into this subject, because in reasoning on the Christian revelation we must assume the existence of a personal God, unless all such treatises, in addition to their own proper subject-matter, must likewise contain an elaborate work on the principles of theism, and a refutation of those of pantheism and atheism. The defender of Christianity is charged with reasoning in a circle, as though he first assumed the existence of a personal God, and then derived the idea of his existence from revelation. This charge would undoubtedly be true if the idea of God being a person is unthinkable. I am at a loss to conceive how it becomes one atom more thinkable if communicated by a revelation. Much obscurity has undoubtedly been thrown on this subject by Christian writers who have fancied that the more they can invalidate our reason the greater gain accrues to Revelation. This is not only unwise but irrational. Our[pg 122]reason doubtless is but an imperfect light, but its extinction is to leave us to grope in darkness. I affirm therefore that the assumption of the divine personality as the groundwork of our argument involves nopetitio principii, or reasoning in a circle.

One more remark and I will bring this portion of the subject to a close. The affirmation made by this philosophy that certain things are unthinkable is fallacious. What do we mean by“unthinkable”? It may mean many things; first, that the subject cannot be made in any sense an object of thought. This, in fact, is the only legitimate use of the word. But in this sense the affirmation cannot be true of even Mr. Herbert Spencer's unknown and unknowable God, for it is evident that he does manage to reason and think about him somehow. It may mean a being respecting whom we may know much and attain a knowledge continually progressing, but respecting whom there is much which is unknown. This unknown is called unthinkable. But it is not unthinkable. It has only not yet become the subject of our knowledge, and is no more unthinkable than any other unknown truth. Or that may be pronounced to be unthinkable respecting which our conceptions are wanting in definiteness and precision. But to designate such things as unthinkable is an abuse of language. Or that may be designated as unthinkable of which our conceptions fail fully to represent the reality. As far as they go, they may be true, but there may be something beyond of a similar kind, which they do not embrace. This is the only sense in which it can be affirmed that God is unthinkable, but the assertion is altogether misleading. The only correct meaning of the expression is when some particular thing is affirmed to exist and at the same time contradictions co-exist in it. The actual co-existence[pg 123]of these two contradictions is unthinkable, but nothing more. Thus the existence of a round square is unthinkable, so would the affirmation that the divine power was at the same time both limited and unlimited. But in no other sense is a conception unthinkable. To affirm that the cause of all things is unthinkable because our conceptions of Him do not measure the entire depths of His being is simply misleading.

I have gone into this question because it is evident that if God is unthinkable a revelation of Him is impossible, and if a revelation of Him is impossible, all miracles affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of one must be delusions.

Back to IndexNext