THE UNKNOWN GOD.
"As I passed by, and beheld your sacred objects, I found an altar with
this inscription, _To the Unknown God_."--ST. PAUL.
"That which can be _known_ of God is manifested in their hearts, God
himself having shown it to them" [the heathen nations].--ST. PAUL.
Having now reached our first landing-place, from whence we may survey
the fields that we have traversed, it may be well to set down in
definite propositions the results we have attained. We may then carry
them forward, as torches, to illuminate the path of future and still
profounder inquiries.
The principles we have assumed as the only adequate and legitimate
interpretation of the facts of religious history, and which an extended
study of the most fully-developed religious system of the ancient world
confirms, may be thus announced:
I. A religious nature and destination appertain to man, so that the
purposes of his existence and the perfection of his being can only be
secured in and through religion.
II. The idea of God as the unconditioned Cause, the infinite Mind, the
personal Lord and Lawgiver, and the consciousness of dependence upon and
obligation to God, are the fundamental principles of all religion.
III. Inasmuch as man is a religious being, the instincts and emotions of
his nature constraining him to worship, there must also be implanted in
his rational nature some original _à priori_ ideas or laws of thought
which furnish the necessary cognition of the object of worship; that is,
some native, spontaneous cognition of God.
A mere blind impulse would not be adequate to guide man to the true end
and perfection of his being without rational ideas; a tendency or
appetency, without a revealed object, would be the mockery and misery of
his nature--an "ignis fatuus" perpetually alluring and forever deceiving
man.
That man has a native, spontaneous apperception of a God, in the true
import of that sacred name, has been denied by men of totally opposite
schools and tendencies of thought--by the Idealist and the Materialist;
by the Theologian and the Atheist. Though differing essentially in their
general principles and method, they are agreed in asserting that God is
absolutely "_the unknown_;" and that, so far as reason and logic are
concerned, man can not attain to any knowledge of the first principles
and causes of the universe, and, consequently, can not determine whether
the first principle or principles be intelligent or unintelligent,
personal or impersonal, finite or infinite, one or many righteous or
non-righteous, evil or good.
The various opponents of the doctrine that God can be cognized by human
reason may be classified as follows: I. _Those who assert that all human
knowledge is necessarily confined to the observation and classification
of phenomena in their orders of co-existence, succession, and
resemblance_. Man has no faculty for cognizing substances, causes,
forces, reasons, first principles--no power by which he can _know_ God.
This class may be again subdivided into--
1. Those who limit all knowledge to the observation and classification
of _mental_ phenomena (_e. g_., Idealists like J. S. Mill).
2. Those who limit all knowledge to the observation and classification
of _material_ phenomena (_e. g_., Materialists like Comte).
II. _The second class comprises all who admit that philosophic knowledge
is the knowledge of effects as dependent on causes, and of qualities as
inherent in substances; but at the same time assert that "all knowledge
is of the phenomenal_." Philosophy can never attain to a positive
knowledge of the First Cause. Of existence, absolutely and in itself, we
know nothing. The infinite can not by us be comprehended, conceived, or
thought. _Faith_ is the organ by which we apprehend what is beyond
knowledge. We believe in the existence of God, but we can not _know_
God. This class, also, may be again subdivided into--
1. Those who affirm that our idea of the Infinite First Cause is
grounded on an _intuitional_ or subjective faith, necessitated by an
"impotence of thought"--that is, by a mental inability to conceive an
absolute limitation or an infinite illimitation, an absolute
commencement or an infinite non-commencement. Both contradictory
opposites are equally incomprehensible and inconceivable to us; and yet,
though unable to view either as possible, we are forced by a higher
law--the "Law of Excluded Middle"--to admit that one, and only one, is
necessary (_e. g_., Hamilton and Mansel).
2. Those who assert that our idea of God rests solely on an _historical_
or objective faith in testimony--the testimony of Scripture, which
assures us that, in the course of history, God has manifested his
existence in an objective manner to the senses, and given verbal
communications of his character and will to men; human reason being
utterly incapacitated by the fall, and the consequent depravity of man,
to attain any knowledge of the unity, spirituality, and righteousness of
God (_e. g_., Watson, and Dogmatic Theologians generally).
It will thus be manifest that the great question, the central and vital
question which demands a thorough and searching consideration, is the
following, to wit: _Is God cognizable by human reason_? Can man attain
to a positive cognition of God--can he _know_ God; or is all our
supposed knowledge "a learned ignorance,"[210] an unreasoning faith? We
venture to answer this question in the affirmative. Human reason is now
adequate to the cognition of God; it is able, with the fullest
confidence, to affirm the being of a God, and, in some degree, to
determine his character. The parties and schools above referred to
answer this question in the negative form. Whether Theologians or
Atheists, they are singularly agreed in denying to human reason all
possibility of _knowing_ God.
[Footnote 210: Hamilton's "Philosophy," p. 512.]
Before entering upon the discussion of the negative positions enumerated
in the above classification, it may be important we should state our own
position explicitly, and exhibit what we regard as the true doctrine of
the genesis of the idea of God in the human intelligence. The real
question at issue will then stand out in clear relief, and precision
will be given to the entire discussion.
(i.) _We hold that the idea of God is a common phenomenon of the
universal human intelligence_. It is found in all minds where reason has
had its normal and healthy development; and no race of men has ever been
found utterly destitute of the idea of God. The proof of this position
has already been furnished in chap, ii.,[211] and needs not be re-stated
here. We have simply to remark that the appeal which is made by Locke
and others of the sensational school to the experiences of infants,
idiots, the deaf and dumb, or, indeed, any cases wherein the proper
conditions for the normal development of reason are wanting, are utterly
irrelevant to the question. The acorn contains within itself the
rudimental germ of the future oak, but its mature and perfect
development depends on the exterior conditions of moisture, light, and
heat. By these exterior conditions it may be rendered luxuriant in its
growth, or it may be stunted in its growth. It may barely exist under
one class of conditions; it may be distorted and perverted, or it may
perish utterly under another. And so in the idiotic mind the ideas of
reason may be wanting, or they may be imprisoned by impervious walls of
cerebral malformation. In the infant mind the development of reason is
yet in an incipient stage. The idea of God is immanent to the infant
thought, but the infant thought is not yet matured. The deaf and dumb
are certainly not in that full and normal correlation to the world of
sense which is a necessary condition of the development of reason.
Language, the great vehiculum and instrument of thought, is wanting, and
reason can not develop itself without words. "Words without thought are
dead sounds, _thoughts without words are nothing_. The word is the
thought incarnate."[212] Under proper and normal conditions, the idea of
God is the natural and necessary form in which human thought must be
developed. And, with these explanations, we repeat our affirmation that
the idea of God is a common phenomenon of the universal human
intelligence.
[Footnote 211: Pp. 89,90.]
[Footnote 212: Müller, "Science of Language," p. 384.]
(ii.) _We do not hold that the idea of God, in its completeness, is a
simple, direct, and immediate intuition of the reason alone, independent
of all experience, and all knowledge of the external world_. The idea of
God is a complex idea, and not a simple idea. The affirmation, "God
exists," is a _synthetic_ and _primitive_ judgment spontaneously
developed in the mind, and developed, too, independent of all reflective
reasoning. It is a necessary deduction from the facts of the outer world
of nature and the primary intuitions of the inner world of reason--a
logical deduction from the self-evident truths given in sense,
consciousness, and reason. "We do not _perceive_ God, but we _conceive_
Him upon the faith of this admirable world exposed to view, and upon the
other world, more admirable still, which we bear in ourselves."[213]
Therefore we do not say that man is born with an "innate idea" of God,
nor with the definite proposition, "there is a God," written upon his
soul; but we do say that the mind is pregnant with certain natural
principles, and governed, in its development, by certain necessary laws
of thought, which determine it, by a _spontaneous logic_, to affirm the
being of a God; and, furthermore, that this judgment may be called
_innate_ in the sense, that it is the primitive, universal, and
necessary development of the human understanding which "is innate to
itself and equal to itself in all men."[214]
[Footnote 213: Cousin, "True, Beautiful and Good," p.102.]
[Footnote 214: Leibnitz.]
As the vital and rudimentary germ of the oak is contained in the acorn;
as it is quickened and excited to activity by the external conditions of
moisture, light, and heat, and is fully de developed under the fixed and
determinative laws of vegetable life--so the germs of the idea of God
are present in the human mind as the intuitions of pure reason
(_Rational Psychology_); these intuitions are excited to energy by our
experiential and historical knowledge of the facts and laws of the
universe (_Phenomenology_); and these facts and intuitions are developed
into form by the necessary laws of the intellect (_Nomology_, or
_Primordial Logic_).
The _logical demonstration_ of the being of God commences with the
analysis of thought. It asks, What are the ideas which exist in the
human intelligence? What are their actual characteristics, and what
their primitive characteristics? What is their origin, and what their
validity? Having, by this process, found that some of our ideas are
subjective, and some objective that some are derived from experience,
and that some can not be derived from experience, but are inherent in
the very constitution of the mind itself, as _à priori_ ideas of reason;
that these are characterized as self-evident, universal, and necessary
and that, as laws of thought, they govern the mind in all its
conceptions of the universe; it has formulated these necessary
judgments, and presented them as distinct and articulate propositions.
These _à priori_, necessary judgments constitute the major premise of
the Theistic syllogism, and, in view of the facts of the universe,
necessitate the affirmation of the existence of a God as the only valid
explanation of the facts.
The _natural_ or _chronological order_ in which the idea of God is
developed in the human intelligence, is the reverse process of the
scientific or logical order, in which the demonstration of the being of
God is presented by philosophy; the latter is _reflective_ and
_analytic_, the former is _spontaneous_ and _synthetic._ The natural
order commences with the knowledge of the facts of the universe,
material and mental, as revealed by sensation and experience. In
presence of these facts of the universe, the _à priori_ ideas of power,
cause, reason, and end are evoked into consciousness with greater or
less distinctness; and the judgment, by a natural and spontaneous logic,
free from all reflection, and consequently from all possibility of
error, affirms a necessary relation between the facts of experience and
the _à priori_ ideas of the reason. The result of this involuntary and
almost unconscious process of thought is that natural cognition of a God
found, with greater or less clearness and definiteness, in all rational
minds. The _à posteriori_, or empirical knowledge of the phenomena of
the universe, in their relations to time and space, constitute the minor
premise of the Theistic syllogism.
The Theistic argument is, therefore, necessarily composed of both
experiential and _à priori_ elements. An _à posteriori_ element exists
as a condition of the logical demonstration The rational _à priori_
element is, however, the logical basis, the only valid foundation of the
Theistic demonstration. The facts of the universe alone would never lead
man to the recognition of a God, if the reason, in presence of these
facts, did not enounce certain necessary and universal principles which
are the logical antecedents, and adequate explanation of the facts. Of
what use would it be to point to the events and changes of the material
universe as proofs of the existence of a _First Cause,_ unless we take
account of the universal and necessary truth that "every change must
have an efficient cause;" that all phenomena are an indication of
_power_; and that "there is an ultimate and sufficient reason why all
things exist, and are as they are, and not otherwise." There would be no
logical force in enumerating the facts of order and special adaptation
which literally crowd the universe, as proofs of the existence of an
_Intelligent Creator_, if the mind did not affirm the necessary
principle that "facts of order, having a commencement in time, suppose
mind as their source and exponent." There is no logical conclusiveness
in the assertion of Paley, "that _experience_ teaches us that a designer
must be a person," because, as Hume justly remarks, our "experience" is
narrowed down to a mere point, "and can not be a rule for a universe;"
but there is an infinitude of force in that dictum of reason, that
"intelligence, self-consciousness, and self-determination necessarily
constitute personality." A multiplicity of different effects, of which
experience does not always reveal the connection, would not conduct to a
single cause and to _one_ God, but rather to a plurality of causes and a
plurality of gods, did not reason teach us that "all plurality implies
an ultimate indivisible unity," and therefore there must be a _First
Cause_ of all causes, a _First Principle_ of all principles, _the
Substance_ of all substances, _the Being_ of all beings--_a God_ "of
whom, in whom, and to whom are all things" (panta ek tou Theou, en tô
Theô eis ton Theon).
The conclusion, therefore, is, that, as the idea of God is a complex
idea, so there are necessarily a number of simple _à priori_ principles,
and a variety of experiential facts conspiring to its development in the
human intelligence.
(iii.) _The universe presents to the human mind an aggregation and
history of phenomena which demands the idea of a God--a self-existent,
intelligent, personal, righteous First Cause--as its adequate
explanation._
The attempt of Positivism to confine all human knowledge to the
observation and classification of phenomena, and arrest and foreclose
all inquiry as to causes, efficient, final, and ultimate, is simply
futile and absurd. It were just as easy to arrest the course of the sun
in mid-heaven as to prevent the human mind from seeking to pass beyond
phenomena, and ascertain the ground, and reason, and cause of all
phenomena. The history of speculative thought clearly attests that, in
all ages, the inquiry after the Ultimate Cause and Reason of all
existence--the archê, or First Principle of all things--has been the
inevitable and necessary tendency of the human mind; to resist which,
skepticism and positivism have been utterly impotent. The first
philosophers, of the Ionian school, had just as strong a faith in the
existence of a Supreme Reality--an Ultimate Cause--as Leibnitz and
Cousin. But when, by reflective thought, they attempted to render an
account to themselves of this instinctive faith, they imagined that its
object must be in some way appreciable to sense, and they sought it in
some physical element, or under some visible and tangible shrine. Still,
however imperfect and inadequate the method, and however unsatisfactory
the results, humanity has never lost its positive and ineradicable
confidence that the problem of existence could be solved. The resistless
tide of spontaneous and necessary thought has always borne the race
onward towards the recognition of a great First Cause; and though
philosophy may have erred, again and again, in tracing the logical order
of this inevitable thought, and exhibiting the necessary nexus between
the premises and conclusion, yet the human mind has never wavered in the
confidence which it has reposed in the natural logic of thought, and man
has never ceased to believe in a God.
We readily grant that all our empirical knowledge is confined to
phenomena in their orders of co-existence, succession, and resemblance.
"To our objective perception and comparison nothing is given but
qualities and changes; to our inductive generalization nothing but the
shifting and grouping of these in time and space." Were it, however, our
immediate concern to discuss the question, we could easily show that
sensationalism has never succeeded in tracing the genetic origin of our
ideas of space and time to observation and experience; and, without the
_à priori_ idea of _space_, as the place of bodies, and of _time_, as
the condition of succession, we can not conceive of phenomena at all.
If, therefore, we know any thing beyond phenomena and their mutual
relations; if we have any cognition of realities underlying phenomena,
and of the relations of phenomena to their objective ground, it must be
given by some faculty distinct from sense-perception, and in some
process distinct from inductive generalization. The knowledge of real
Being and real Power, of an ultimate Reason and a personal Will, is
derived from the apperception of pure reason, which affirms the
necessary existence of a Supreme Reality--an Uncreated Being beyond all
phenomena, which is the ground and reason of the existence--the
contemporaneousness and succession--the likeness and unlikeness, of all
phenomena.
The immediate presentation of phenomena to sensation is the _occasion_
of the development in consciousness of these _à priori_ ideas of reason:
the possession of these ideas or the immanence of these ideas, in the
human intellect, constitutes the original _power_ to know external
phenomena. The ideas of space, time, power, law, reason, and end, are
the logical antecedents of the ideas of body, succession, event,
consecution, order, and adaptation. The latter can not be conceived as
distinct notions without the former. The former will not be revealed in
thought without the presentation to sense, of resistance, movement,
change, uniformity, etc. All actual knowledge must, therefore, be
impure; that is, it must involve both _à priori_ and _à posteriori_
elements; and between these elements there must be a necessary relation.
This necessary relation between the _à priori_ and _à posteriori_
elements of knowledge is not a mere subjective law of thought. It is
both a law of thought and a law of things. Between the _à posteriori_
facts of the universe and the _à priori_ ideas of the reason there is an
absolute nexus, a universal and necessary correlation; so that the
cognition of the latter is possible only on the cognition of the former;
and the objective existence of the realities, represented by the ideas
of reason, is the condition, _sine qua non_, of the existence of the
phenomena presented to sense. If, in one indivisible act of
consciousness, we immediately perceive extended matter exterior to our
percipient mind, then Extension exists objectively; and if Extension
exists objectively, then Space, its _conditio sine qua non_, also exists
objectively. And if a definite body reveals to us the _Space_ in which
it is contained, if a succession of pulsations or movements exhibit the
uniform _Time_ beneath, so do the changeful phenomena of the universe
demand a living _Power_ behind, and the existing order and regular
evolution of the universe presuppose _Thought_--prevision, and
predetermination, by an intelligent mind.
If, then, the universe is a created effect, it must furnish some
indications of the character of its cause. If, as Plato taught, the
world is a "created image" of the eternal archetypes which dwell in the
uncreated Mind, and if the subjective ideas which dwell in the human
reason, as the offspring of God, are "copies" of the ideas of the
Infinite Reason--if the universe be "the autobiography of the Infinite
Spirit which has also repeated itself in miniature within our finite
spirit," then may we decipher its symbols, and read its lessons straight
off. Then every approach towards a scientific comprehension and
generalization of the facts of the universe must carry us upward towards
the higher realities of reason. The more we can understand of Nature--of
her comprehensive laws, of her archetypal forms, of her far-reaching
plan spread through the almost infinite ages, and stretching through
illimitable space--the more do we comprehend the divine Thought. The
inductive generalization of science gradually _ascends_ towards the
universal; the pure, essential, _à priori_ reason, with its universal
and necessary ideas, _descends_ from above to meet it. The general
conceptions of science are thus a kind of _ideoe umbratiles_--shadowy
assimilations to those immutable ideas which dwell in essential reason,
as possessed by the Supreme Intelligence, and which are participated in
by rational man as the offspring and image of God.
Without making any pretension to profound scientific accuracy, we offer
the following tentative classification of the facts of the universe,
material and mental, which may be regarded as hints and adumbrations of
the ultimate ground, and reason, and cause, of the universe. We shall
venture to classify these facts as indicative of some fundamental
relation; (i.) to Permanent Being or Reality; (ii.) to Reason and
Thought; (iii.) to Moral Ideas and Ends.
(i.) _Facts of the universe which indicate some fundamental relation to
Permanent Being or Reality_.
1. _Qualitative_ Phenomena (properties, attributes, qualities)--the
predicates of a _subject_; which phenomena, being characterized by
likeness and unlikeness, are capable of comparison and classification,
and thus of revealing something as to the nature of the _subject_.
2. _Dynamical_ Phenomena (protension, movement, succession)--events
transpiring in _time_, having beginning, succession, and end, which
present themselves to us as the expression of _power_, and throw back
their distinctive characteristics on their _dynamic_ source.
3. _Quantitative_ Phenomena (totality, multiplicity, relative unity)--a
multiplicity of objects having relative and composite unity, which
suggests some relation to an absolute and indivisible _unity_.
4. _Statical_ Phenomena (extension, magnitude, divisibility)--bodies
co-existing in _space_ which are limited, conditioned, relative,
dependent, and indicate some relation to that which is self-existent,
unconditioned, and absolute.
(ii.) _Facts of the universe which indicate some fundamental relation to
Reason or Thought_.
1. _Numerical and Geometrical Proportion_.--Definite proportion of
elements (Chemistry), symmetrical arrangement of parts
(Crystallography), numerical and geometrical relation of the forms and
movements of the heavenly bodies (Spherical Astronomy), all of which are
capable of exact mathematical expression.
2. _Archetypal Forms_.--The uniform succession of new existences, and
the progressive evolution of new orders and species, conformable to
fixed and definite ideal archetypes, the indication of a comprehensive
_plan_(Morphological Botany, Comparative Anatomy).
3. _Teleology of Organs_.--The adaptation of organs to the fulfillment
of special functions, indicating _design_(Comparative Physiology).
4. _Combination of Homotypes and Analogues_.--Diversified homologous
forms made to fulfill analogous functions, or special purposes fulfilled
whilst maintaining a general plan, indicating _choice_ and
_alternativity_.
(iii.) _Facts of the universe which indicate some fundamental relation
to Moral Ideas and Ends_.
1. _Ethical Distinctions_.--The universal tendency to discriminate
between voluntary acts as right or wrong, indicating some relation to an
_immutable moral standard of right_.
2. _Sense of Obligation_.--The universal consciousness of dependence and
obligation, indicating some relation to Supreme _Power_, an Absolute
_Authority_.
3. _Feeling of Responsibility_.--The universal consciousness of
liability to be required to give account for, and endure the
consequences of our action, indicating some relation to a Supreme
_Judge_.
4. _Retributive Issues_.--The pleasure and pain resulting from moral
action in this life, and the universal anticipation of pleasure or pain
in the future, as the consequence of present conduct, indicate an
_absolute Justice_ ruling the world and man.
Now, if the universe be a _created effect_, it must, in some degree at
least, reveal the character of its Author and cause. We are entitled to
regard it as a created symbol and image of the Deity; it must bear the
impress of his _power_; it must reveal his infinite _presence_; it must
express his _thoughts_; it must embody and realize his _ideals_, so far,
at least, as material symbols will permit. Just as we see the power and
thought of man revealed in his works, his energy and skill, his ideal
and his taste expressed in his mechanical, artistic, and literary
creations, so we may see the mind and character of God displayed in his
works. The skill and contrivance of Watts, and Fulton, and Stephenson
were exhibited in their mechanical productions. The pure, the intense,
the visionary impersonation of the soul which the artist had conjured in
his own imagination was wrought out in Psyché. The colossal grandeur of
Michael Angelo's ideals, the ethereal and saintly elegance of Raphael's
were realized upon the canvas. So he who is familiar with the ideal of
the sculptor or the painter can identify his creations even when the
author's name is not affixed. And so the "eternal Power" of God is
"clearly seen" in the mighty orbs which float in the illimitable space.
The vastness of the universe shadows forth the infinity of God. The
indivisible unity of space and the ideal unity of the universe reflect
the unity of God. The material forms around us are symbols of divine
ideas, and the successive history of the universe is an expression of
the divine thought; whilst the ethical ideas and sentiments inherent in
the human mind are a reflection of the moral character of God.
The reader can not have failed to observe the form in which the Theistic
argument is stated; "_if_ the finite universe is a created effect, it
must reveal something as to the nature of its cause: _if_ the existing
order and arrangement of the universe had a commencement in time, it
must have an ultimate and adequate cause." The question, therefore,
presents itself in a definite form: "_Is the universe finite or
infinite; had the order of the universe a beginning, or is it eternal_?"
It will be seen at a glance that this is the central and vital question
in the Theistic argument. If the order and arrangement of the universe
is _eternal_, then that order is an inherent law of nature, and, as
eternal, does not imply a cause _ab extra:_ if it is not eternal, then
the ultimate cause of that order must be a power above and beyond
nature. In the former case the minor premise of the Theistic syllogism
is utterly invalidated; in the latter case it is abundantly sustained.
Some Theistic writers--as Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, and Saisset--have
made the fatal admission that the universe is, in some sense, _infinite_
and _eternal_. In making this admission they have unwittingly
surrendered the citadel of strength, and deprived the argument by which
they would prove the being of a God of all its logical force. That
argument is thus presented by Saisset: "The finite supposes the
infinite. Extension supposes first space, then immensity: duration
supposes first time, then eternity. A sudden and irresistible judgment
refers this to the necessary, infinite, perfect being."[215] But if "the
world is infinite and eternal,"[216] may not nature, or the totality of
all existence (to pan), be the necessary, infinite, and perfect Being?
An infinite and eternal universe has the reason of its existence in
itself, and the existence of such a universe can never prove to us the
existence of an infinite and eternal God.
[Footnote 215: "Modern Pantheism," vol. ii. p. 205.]
[Footnote 216: Ibid, p. 123.]
A closer examination of the statements and reasonings of Descartes,
Pascal, and Leibnitz, as furnished by Saisset, will show that these
distinguished mathematicans were misled by the false notion of
"_mathematical_ infinitude." Their infinite universe, after all, is not
an "absolute," but a "relative" infinite; that is, the indefinite. "The
universe must extend _indefinitely_ in time and space, in the infinite
greatness, and in the infinite littleness of its parts--in the infinite
variety of its species, of its forms, and of its degrees of existence.
The finite can not express the infinite but by being _multiplied_
infinitely. The finite, so far as it is finite, is not in any reasonable
relation, or in any intelligible proportion to the infinite. But the
finite, as _multiplied_ infinitely,[217] ages upon ages, spaces upon
spaces, stars beyond stars, worlds beyond worlds, is a true expression
of the Infinite Being. Does it follow, because the universe has no
limits,--that it must therefore be eternal, immense, infinite as God
himself? No; that is but a vain scruple, which springs from the
imagination, and not from the reason. The imagination is always
confounding what reason should ever distinguish, eternity and time,
immensity and space, _relative_ infinity and _absolute_ infinity. The
Creator alone is eternal, immense, absolutely infinite."[218]
[Footnote 217: "The infinite is distinct from the finite, and
consequently from the multiplication of the finite by itself; that is,
from the _indefinite_. That which is not infinite, added as many times
as you please to itself, will not become infinite."--Cousin, "Hist, of
Philos.," vol. ii. p. 231.]
[Footnote 218: Saisset, "Modern Pantheism," vol. ii. pp. 127, 128.]
The introduction of the idea of "the mathematical infinite" into
metaphysical speculation, especially by Kant and Hamilton, with the
design, it would seem, of transforming the idea of infinity into a
sensuous conception, has generated innumerable paralogisms which
disfigure the pages of their philosophical writings. This procedure is
grounded in the common fallacy of supposing that _infinity_ and
_quantity_ are compatible attributes, and susceptible of mathematical
synthesis. This insidious and plausible error is ably refuted by a
writer in the "North American Review."[219] We can not do better than
transfer his argument to our pages in an abridged form.
[Footnote 219: "The Conditioned and the Unconditioned," No. CCV. art.
iii. (1864).]
Mathematics is conversant with quantities and quantitative relations.
The conception of quantity, therefore, if rigorously analyzed, will
indicate _à priori_ the natural and impassable boundaries of the
science; while a subsequent examination of the quantities called
infinite in the mathematical sense, and of the algebraic symbol of
infinity, will be seen to verify the results of this _à priori_
analysis.
Quantity is that attribute of things in virtue of which they are
susceptible of exact mensuration. The question _how much_, or _how many_
(_quantus_), implies the answer, _so much_, or _so many_ (_tantus_); but
the answer is possible only through reference to some standard of
magnitude or multitude arbitrarily assumed. Every object, therefore, of
which quantity, in the mathematical sense, is predicable, must be by its
essential nature _mensurable._ Now mensurability implies the existence
of actual, definite limits, since without them there could be no fixed
relation between the given object and the standard of measurement, and,
consequently, no possibility of exact mensuration. In fact, since
quantification is the object of all mathematical operations, mathematics
may be not inaptly defined as _the science of the determinations of
limits_. It is evident, therefore, that the terms _quantity_ and
_finitude_ express the same attribute, namely, _limitation_--the former
relatively, the latter absolutely; for quantity is limitation considered
with relation to some standard of measurement, and finitude is
limitation considered simply in itself. The sphere of quantity,
therefore, is absolutely identical with the sphere of the finite; and
the phrase _infinite quantity_, if strictly construed, is a
contradiction in terms.
The result thus attained by considering abstract quantity is
corroborated by considering concrete and discrete quantities. Such
expressions as _infinite sphere, radius, parallelogram, line,_ and so
forth, are self-contradictory. A sphere is limited by its own periphery,
and a radius by the centre and circumference of its circle. A
parallelogram of infinite altitude is impossible, because the limit of
its altitude is assigned in the side which must be parallel to its base
in order to constitute it a parallelogram. In brief, all figuration is
limitation. The contradiction in the term _infinite line_ is not quite
so obvious, but can readily be made apparent. Objectively, a line is
only the termination of a surface, and a surface the termination of a
solid; hence a line can not exist apart from an extended quantity, nor
an infinite line apart from an infinite quantity. But as this term has
just been shown to be self-contradictory, an infinite line can not exist
objectively at all. Again, every line is extension in one dimension;
hence a mathematical quantity, hence mensurable, hence finite; you must
therefore, deny that a line is a quantity, or else affirm that it is
finite.
The same conclusion is forced upon us, if from geometry we turn to
arithmetic. The phrases _infinite number, infinite series, infinite
process_, and so forth, are all contradictory when literally construed.
Number is a relation among separate unities or integers, which,
considered objectively as independent of our cognitive powers, must
constitute an exact sum; and this exactitude, or synthetic totality, is
limitation. If considered subjectively in the mode of its cognition, a
number is infinite only in the sense that it is beyond the power of our
imagination or conception, which is an abuse of the term. In either case
the totality is fixed; that is, finite. So, too, of _series_ and
_process_. Since every series involves a succession of terms or numbers,
and every process a succession of steps or stages, the notion of series
and process plainly involves that of _number_, and must be rigorously
dissociated from the idea of infinity. At any one step, at any one term,
the number attained is determinate, hence finite. The fact that, by the
law of the series or of the process, _we_ may continue the operation _as
long as we please_, does not justify the application of the term
infinite to the operation itself; if any thing is infinite, it is the
will which continues the operation, which is absurd if said of human
wills.
Consequently, the attribute of infinity is not predicable either of
'diminution without limit,' 'augmentation without limit,' or 'endless
approximation to a fixed limit,' for these mathematical processes
continue only as we continue them, consist of steps successively
accomplished, and are limited by the very fact of this serial
incompletion.
"We can not forbear pointing out an important application of these
results to the Critical Philosophy. Kant bases each of his famous four
antinomies on the demand of pure reason for unconditioned totality in a
regressive series of conditions. This, he says, must be realized either
in an absolute first of the series, conditioning all the other members,
but itself unconditioned, or else in the absolute infinity of the series
without a first; but reason is utterly unable, on account of mutual
contradiction, to decide in which of the two alternatives the
unconditioned is found. By the principles we have laid down, however,
the problem is solved. The absolute infinity of a series is a
contradiction _in adjecto_. As every number, although immeasurably and
inconceivably great, is impossible unless _unity_ is given as its basis,
so every series, being itself a number, is impossible unless a _first
term_ is given as a commencement. Through a first term alone is the
unconditioned possible; that is, if it does not exist in a first term,
it can not exist at all; of the two alternatives, therefore, one
altogether disappears, and reason is freed from the dilemma of a
compulsory yet impossible decision. Even if it should be allowed that
the series has no first term, but has originated _ab æterno_, it must
always at each instant have a _last term_; the series, as a whole, can
not be infinite, and hence can not, as Kant claims it can, realize in
its wholeness unconditioned totality. Since countless terms forever
remain unreached, the series is forever limited by them. Kant himself
admits that it _can never be completed_, and is only potentially
infinite; actually, therefore, by his own admission, it is finite. But a
last term implies a first, as absolutely as one end of a string implies
the other; the only possibility of an unconditioned lies in Kant's first
alternative, and if, as he maintains Reason must demand it, she can not
hesitate in her decisions. That _number is a limitation_ is no new
truth, and that every series involves number is self-evident; and it is
surprising that so radical a criticism on Kant's system should never
have suggested itself to his opponents. Even the so-called _moments_ of
time can not be regarded as constituting a real series, for a series can
not be real except through its divisibility into members whereas time is
indivisible, and its partition into moments is a conventional fiction.
Exterior limitability and interior divisibility result equally from the
possibility of discontinuity. Exterior illimitability and interior
indivisibility are simple phases of the same attribute of _necessary
continuity_ contemplated under different aspects. From this principle
flows another upon which it is impossible to lay too much stress,
namely; _illimitability and indivisibility, infinity and unity,
reciprocally necessitate each other_. Hence the Quantitative Infinites
must be also Units, and the division of space and time, implying
absolute contradiction, is not even cogitable as an hypothesis.[220]
"The word _infinite_, therefore, in mathematical usage, as applied to
_process_ and to _quantity_, has a two-fold signification. An infinite
process is one which we can continue _as long as we please_, but which
exists solely in our continuance of it.[221] An infinite quantity is one
which exceeds our powers of mensuration or of conception, but which,
nevertheless, has bounds and limits in itself.[222] Hence the
possibility of relation among infinite quantities, and of different
orders of infinities. If the words _infinite, infinity, infinitesimal_,
should be banished from mathematical treatises and replaced by the words
_indefinite, indefinity,_ and _indefinitesimal_, mathematics would
suffer no loss, while, by removing a perpetual source of confusion,
metaphysics would get great gain."
[Footnote 220: By the application of these principles the writer in the
"North American Review" completely dissolves the antinomies by which
Hamilton seeks to sustain his "Philosophy of the Conditioned." See
"North American Review," 1864, pp. 432-437.]
[Footnote 221: De Morgan, "Diff. and Integ. Calc." p. 9.]
[Footnote 222: Id., ib., p. 25.]
The above must be regarded as a complete refutation of the position
taken by _Hume_, to wit, that the idea of nature eternally existing in a
state of order, without a cause other than the eternally inherent laws
of nature, is no more self-contradictory than the idea of an
eternally-existing and infinite mind, who originated this order--a God
existing without a cause. The eternal and infinite Mind is indivisible
and illimitable; nature, in its totality, as well as in its individual
parts, has interior divisibility, and exterior limitability. The
infinity of God is not a _quantitative_, but a _qualitative_ infinity.
The miscalled eternity and infinity of nature is an _indefinite_
extension and protension in time and space, and, as _quantitative_, must
necessarily be limited and measurable, therefore _finite_.
The universe of sense-perception and sensuous imagination is a
phenomenal universe, a genesis, a perpetual becoming, an entrance into
existence, and an exit thence; the Theist is, therefore, perfectly
justified in regarding it as disqualified for _self-existence_, and in
passing behind it for the Supreme Entity that needs no cause. Phenomena
demand causation, entities dispense with it. No one asks for a cause of
the _space_ which contains the universe, or of the Eternity on the bosom
of which it floats. Everywhere the line is necessarily drawn upon the
same principle; that entities _may_ have self-existence, phenomena
_must_ have a cause.[223]
[Footnote 223: "Science, Nescience, and Faith," in Martineau's "Essays,"
p. 206.]
IV. _Psychological analysis clearly attests that in the phenomena of
consciousness there are found elements or principles which, in their
regular and normal development, transcend the limits of consciousness,
and attain to the knowledge of Absolute Being, Absolute Reason, Absolute
Good_, i.e., GOD.
The analysis of thought clearly reveals that the mind of man is in
possession of ideas, notions, beliefs, principles (as _e.g._, the idea
of space, duration, cause, substance, unity, infinity), which are not
derived from sensation and experience, and which can not be drawn out of
sensation and experience by any process of generalization. These ideas
have this incontestable peculiarity, as distinguished from all the
phenomena of sensation, that, whilst the latter are particular,
contingent, and relative, the former are _universal_, _necessary_, and
_absolute_. As an example, and a proof of the reality and validity of
this distinction, take the ideas of _body_ and of _space_, the former
unquestionably derived from experience, the latter supplied by reason
alone. "I ask you, can not you conceive this book to be destroyed?
Without doubt you can. And can not you conceive the whole world to be
destroyed, and no matter whatever in existence? You can. For you,
constituted as you are, the supposition of the non-existence of bodies
implies no contradiction. And what do we call the idea of a thing which
we can conceive of as non-existing? We call it a _contingent_ and
_relative_ idea. But if you can conceive this book to be destroyed, all
bodies destroyed, can you suppose space to be destroyed? You can not. It
is in the power of man's thought to conceive the non-existence of
bodies; it is not in the power of man's thought to conceive the
non-existence of space. The idea of space is thus a _necessary_ and
_absolute_ idea."[224]
[Footnote 224: Cousin's "Hist. of Philos.," vol. ii. p. 214.]
Take, again, the ideas of _event_ and _cause_. The idea of an event is a
_contingent_ idea; it is the idea of something which might or might not
have happened. There is no impossibility or contradiction in either
supposition. The idea of cause is a _necessary_ idea. An event being
given, the idea of cause is necessarily implied. An uncaused event is an
impossible conception. The idea of cause is also a _universal_ idea
extending to all events, actual or conceivable, and affirmed by all
minds. It is a rational fact, attested by universal consciousness, that
we can not think of an event transpiring without a cause; of a thing
being the author of its own existence; of something generated by and out
of nothing. _Ex nihilo nihil_ is a universal law of thought and of
things. This universal "law of causality" is clearly distinguishable
from a _general_ truth reached by induction. For example, it is a very
general truth that, during twenty-four hours, day is succeeded by night.
But this is not a necessary truth, neither is it a universal truth. It
does not extend to all known lands, as, for example, to Nova Zembla. It
does not hold true of the other planets. Nor does it extend to all
possible lands. We can easily conceive of lands plunged in eternal
night, or rolling in eternal day. With another system of worlds, one can
conceive other physics, but one can not conceive other metaphysics. It
is impossible to imagine a world in which the law of causality does not
reign. Here, then, we have one absolute principle (among others which
may be enumerated), the existence and reality of which is revealed, not
by sensation, but by reason--a principle which transcends the limits of
experience, and which, in its regular and logical development, attains
the knowledge of the Absolute Cause--the First Cause of all causes--God.
Thus it is evident that the human mind is in possession of two distinct
orders of primitive cognitions,--one, contingent, relative, and
phenomenal; the other universal, necessary, and absolute. These two
distinct orders of cognition presuppose the existence in man of two
distinct faculties or organs of knowledge--_sensation_, external and
internal, which perceives the contingent, relative, and phenomenal, and
_reason_, which apprehends the universal, necessary, and absolute. The
knowledge which is derived from sensation and experience is called
_empirical_ knowledge, or knowledge _à posteriori_, because subsequent
to, and consequent upon, the exercise of the faculties of observation.
The knowledge derived from reason is called _transcendental_ knowledge,
or knowledge _à priori_, because it furnishes laws to, and governs the
exercise of the faculties of observation and thought, and is not the
result of their exercise. The sensibility brings the mind into relation
with the _physical_ world, the reason puts mind in communication with
the _intelligible_ world--the sphere of _à priori_ principles, of
necessary and absolute truths, which depend upon neither the world nor
the conscious self, and which reveal to man the existence of the soul,
nature, and God. Every distinct fact of consciousness is thus at once
_psychological_ and _ontological_, and contains these three fundamental
ideas, which we can not go beyond, or cancel by any possible
analysis--the _soul_, with its faculties; _matter_, with its qualities;
_God_, with his perfections.
We do not profess to be able to give a clear explication and complete
enumeration of all the ideas of reason, and of the necessary and
universal principles or axioms which are grounded on these ideas. This
is still the grand desideratum of metaphysical science. Its achievement
will give us a primordial logic, which shall be as exact in its
procedure and as certain in its conclusions as the mathematical
sciences. Meantime, it may be affirmed that philosophic analysis, in the
person of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Cousin, has succeeded in
disengaging such _à priori_ ideas, and formulating such principles and
laws of thought, as lead infallibly to the cognition of the _Absolute
Being_, the _Absolute Reason_, the _Absolute Good_, that is, GOD.
It would carry us too far beyond our present design were we to exhibit,
in each instance, the process of _immediate abstraction_ by which the
contingent and relative element of knowledge is eliminated, and the
necessary and absolute principle is disengaged. We shall simply state
the method, and show its application by a single illustration.
There are unquestionably _two_ sorts of abstraction: 1. "_Comparative_
abstraction, operating upon several real objects, and seizing their
resemblances in order to form an abstract idea, which is collective and
mediate; collective, because different individuals concur in its
formation; mediate, because it requires several intermediate
operations." This is the method of the physical sciences, which
comprises comparison, abstraction, and generalization. The result in
this process is the attainment of a _general_ truth. 2. "_Immediate_
abstraction, not comparative; operating not upon several concretes, but
upon a single one, eliminating and neglecting its individual and
variable part, and disengaging the absolute part, which it raises at
once to its pure form." The parts to be eliminated in a concrete
cognition are, first, the quality of the object, and the circumstances
under which the absolute unfolds itself; and secondly, the quality of
the subject, which perceives but does not constitute it. The phenomena
of the me and the not-me being eliminated, the absolute remains. This is
the process of rational psychology, and the result obtained is a
_universal_ and _necessary_ truth.
"Let us take, as an example, the principle of cause. To be able to say
that the event I see must have a cause, it is not indispensable to have
seen several events succeed each other. The principle which compels me
to pronounce this judgment is already complete in the first as in the
last event; it can not change in respect to its object, it can not
change in itself; it neither increases nor decreases with the greater or
less number of applications. The only difference that it is subject to
in regard to us is that we apply it, whether we remark it or not,
whether we disengage it or not from its particular application. The
question is not to eliminate the particularity of the phenomenon wherein
it appears to us, whether it be the fall of a leaf or the murder of a
man, in order immediately to conceive, in a general and abstract manner,
the necessity of a cause for every event that begins to exist. Here it
is not because I am the same, or have been affected in the same manner
in several different cases, that I have come to this general and
abstract conception. A leaf falls; at the same moment I think, I
believe, I declare that this falling of the leaf must have a cause. A
man has been killed; at the same instant I believe, I proclaim that this
death must have a cause. Each one of these facts contains particular and
variable circumstances, and something universal and necessary, to wit,
both of them can not but have a cause. Now I am perfectly able to
disengage the universal from the particular in regard to the first fact
as well as in regard to the second fact, for the universal is in the
first quite as well as in the second. In fact, if the principle of
causality is not universal in the first fact, neither will it be in the
second, nor in the third, nor in the thousandth; for a thousandth is not
nearer than the first to the infinite--to absolute universality. It is
the same, and still more evidently, with _necessity_. Pay particular
attention to this point; if necessity is not in the first fact, it can
not be in any; for necessity can not be formed little by little, and by
successive increments. If, on the first murder I see, I do not exclaim
that this murder had necessarily a cause, at the thousandth murder,
although it shall be proved that all the others had causes, I shall have
the right to think that this murder has, very probably, also a cause,
but I shall never have the right to say that it _necessarily_ had a
cause. But when universality and necessity are already in a single case,
that case is sufficient to entitle me to deduce them from it,"[225] and
we may add, also, to affirm them of every other event that may
transpire.
[Footnote 225: Cousin, "True, Beautiful, and Good," pp. 57, 58.]
The following _schema_ will exhibit the generally accepted results of
this method of analysis applied to the phenomena of thought:
(i.) _Universal and necessary principles, or primitive judgments from
whence is derived the cognition of Absolute Being_.
1. _The principle of Substance_; thus enounced--"every quality supposes
a _subject_ or real being."
2. _The principle of Causality_; "every thing that begins to be supposes
a _power_ adequate to its production, _i.e._, an efficient cause."
3. _The principle of Unity_; "all differentiation and plurality supposes
an incomposite unity; all diversity, an ultimate and indivisible
identity."
4. _The principle of the Unconditioned_; "the finite supposes the
infinite, the dependent supposes the self-existent, the temporal
supposes the eternal."
(ii.) _Universal and necessary principles, or primitive judgments, from
which is derived the cognition of the Absolute Reason_.
1. _The principle of Ideality_; thus enounced, "facts of order--definite
proportion, symmetrical arrangement, numerical relation, geometrical
form--having a commencement in time, present themselves to us as the
expression of _Ideas_, and refer us to _Mind_ as their analogon, and
exponent, and source."
2. _The principle of Consecution_; "the uniform succession and
progressive evolution of new existences, according to fixed definite
archetypes, suppose a unity of _thought_--a comprehensive _plan_
embracing all existence."
3. _The principle of Intentionality or Final Cause_; "every means
supposes an _end_ contemplated, and a choice and adaptation of means to
secure the _end_."
4. _The principle of Personality_; "intelligent purpose and voluntary
choice imply a personal agent."
(iii.) _Universal and necessary principles, or primitive judgments, from
whence is derived the cognition of the Absolute Good_.
1. _The principle of Moral Law_; thus enounced, "the action of a
voluntary agent necessarily characterized as _right_ or _wrong_,
supposes an immutable and universal standard of right--an absolute moral
Law."
2. _The principle of Moral Obligation_; "the feeling of obligation to
obey a law of duty supposes a _Lawgiver_ by whose authority we are
obliged."
3. _The principle of Moral Desert_; "the feeling of personal
accountability and of moral desert supposes a _judge_ to whom we must
give account, and who shall determine our award."
4. _The pnnciple of Retribution_; "retributive issues in this life, and
the existence in all minds of an impersonal justice which demands that,
in the final issue, every being shall receive his just deserts, suppose
a being of _absolute justice_ who shall render to every man according to
his works."
A more profound and exhaustive analysis may perhaps resolve all these
primitive judgments into one universal principle or law, which Leibnitz
has designated "_The principle or law of sufficient reason_," and which
is thus enounced--there must be an ultimate and sufficient reason why
any thing exists, and why it is, rather than otherwise; that is, if any
thing begins to be, something else must be supposed as the adequate
ground, and reason, and cause of its existence; or again, to state the
law in view of our present discussion, "_if the finite universe, with
its existing order and arrangement, had a beginning, there must be an
ultimate and sufficient reason why it exists, and why it is as it is,
rather than otherwise_." In view of one particular class of phenomena,
or special order of facts, this "principle of sufficient reason" may be
varied in the form of its statement, and denominated "the principle of
substance," "the principle of causality," "the principle of
intentionality," etc.; and, it may be, these are but specific judgments
under the one fundamental and generic law of thought which constitutes
the _major_ premise of every Theistic syllogism.
These fundamental principles, primitive judgments, axioms, or necessary
and determinate forms of thought, exist potentially or germinally in all
human minds; they are spontaneously developed in presence of the
phenomena of the universe, material and mental; they govern the original
movement of the mind, even when not appearing in consciousness in their
pure and abstract form; and they compel us to affirm _a permanent being_
or _reality_ behind all phenomena--a _power_ adequate to the production
of change, back of all events; a _personal Mind_, as the explanation of
all the facts of order, and uniform succession, and regular evolution;
and a _personal Lawgiver_ and _Righteous Judge_ as the ultimate ground
and reason of all the phenomena of the moral world; in short, to affirm
_an Unconditioned Cause of all finite and secondary causes; a First
Principle of all principles; an Ultimate Reason of all reasons; an
immutable Uncreated Justice, the living light of conscience; a King
immortal, eternal, invisible, the only wise God, the ruler of the world
and man_.
Our position, then, is, that the idea of God is revealed to man in the
natural and spontaneous development of his intelligence, and that the
existence of a Supreme Reality corresponding to, and represented by this
idea, is rationally and logically demonstrable, and therefore justly
entitled to take rank as part of our legitimate, valid, and positive
_knowledge_.
And now from this position, which we regard as impregnable, we shall be
prepared more deliberately and intelligibly to contemplate the various
assaults which are openly or covertly made upon the doctrine that _God
is cognizable by human reason_.