Cousin, and with Cousin's German predecessors and teachers? That celebrated controversy surely meant something. Where there was so much smoke there must have been some fire. Some difference of opinion must really have existed between Sir W. Hamilton and his antagonists.

Assuredly there was a difference, and one of great importance from the point of view of either disputant; not unimportant in the view of those who dissent from them both. In the succeeding chapter I shall endeavour to point out what the difference was.

CHAPTER IV.

IN WHAT RESPECT SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON REALLY DIFFERS FROM THE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE ABSOLUTE.

THE question really at issue in Sir W. Hamilton's celebrated and striking review of Cousin's philosophy, is this: Have we, or have we not, an immediate intuition of God. The name of God is veiled under two extremely abstract phrases, "The Infinite" and "The Absolute," perhaps from a reverential feeling: such, at least, is the reason given by Sir W. Hamilton's disciple, Mr. Mansel,* for preferring the more vague expressions. But it is one of the most unquestionable of all logical maxims, that the meaning of the abstract must be sought for in the concrete, and not conversely; and we shall see, both in the case of Sir W. Hamilton and of Mr. Mansel, that the process cannot be reversed with impunity.+

Bampton Lectures. (The Limits of Religious Thought.) Fourth edition, p. 42.

+ Mr. Mansel (pp. 90-98) denies the correctness of the representations made in this paragraph; and at least seems to assert, that the question between M. Cousin and Sir W. Hamilton did not relate to the possibility of knowing the Infinite Being, but to a "pseudo-concept of the Infinite," which Sir W. Hamilton believed to be not a proper predicate of God, but a representation of a non-entity. And Mr Mansel affirms (p. 92) that to substitute the name of God in the place of the Infinite and the Absolute, is exactly to reverse Sir W. Hamilton's argument. We have here a direct issue of fact, of which every one is a judge who will take the trouble to read Sir W. Hamilton's Essay. I maintain that what M. Cousin affirms and Sir W. Hamilton denies, is the cognoscibility not of an Infinite and Absolute which is not God, but of the Infinite and Absolute which is God. I might refer to almost any page of the Essay; I will only quote the application which Sir W. Hamilton himself makes of his own doctrine (Disc. p. 15, note). "True, therefore, are the declarations of a pious philosophy :-A God understood would be no God at all.' 'To think that "God is, as we can think him to be, is blasphemy.' The Divinity, in a

I proceed to state, chiefly in the words of Sir W. Hamilton, the opinions of the two parties to the controversy. Both undertake to decide what are the facts which (in their own phraselogy) are given in Consciousness; or, as others say, of which we have intuitive knowledge. According to Cousin, there are, in every act of consciousness, three elements; three things of which we are intuitively aware. There is a finite element; an element of plurality, compounded of a Self or Ego, and something different from Self, or Non-ego. There is also an infinite element; a consciousness of something infinite. "At the same instant when we are "certain sense, is revealed; in a certain sense, is concealed: he is at once "known and unknown. But the last and highest consecration of all true "religion, must be an altar 'Ayvwσry Оew-To the unknown and unknow"able God." When this is what the author of the Essay presents as its practical result, it is too much to tell us that the Essay is not concerned about God but about a "Pseudo-Infinite," and that we are not entitled, when we find in it an assertion about the Infinite, to hold the author to the assertion as applicable to God. We shall next be told that Mr. Mansel himself, in his Bampton Lectures, is not treating the question of our knowledge of God. It is very true that the only Infinite about which either Sir W. Hamilton or Mr. Mansel proves anything, is a Pseudo-Infinite ; but they are not in the least aware of this; they fancy that this Pseudo-Infinite is the real Infinite, and that in proving it to be unknowable by us, they prove the same thing of God.

The reader who desires further elucidation of this point, may consult the sixth chapter of Mr. Bolton's Inquisitio Philosophica. That acute thinker also points out various inconsistencies and other logical errors in Mr. Mansel's work, with which I am not here concerned, my object in answering him not being recrimination, but to maintain my original assertions against his denial.

Mr. Mansel, in his rejoinder, quotes from his Bampton Lectures some passages in which he says, and others in which he implies, that "our "human conception of the Infinite is not the true one," and that "the "infinite of philosophy is not the true Infinite:" and thinks it very unfair that, with these passages before me, I should accuse him of mistaking a pseudo-infinite for the real Infinite. But the mistake from which he clears himself is not that which I charged him with. I maintained, that the abstraction "The Infinite," in whatever manner understood, as distinguished from some particular attribute possessed in an infinite degree, has no existence, and is a pseudo-infinite. Mr. Mansel, on the contrary, affirmed throughout, and affirms in the very passages which he quotes, that "The Infinite" has a real existence, and is God: though when we attempt to conceive what it is, we only reach a mass of contradictions, which is a pseudo-infinite. Mr. Mansel did not suppose his pseudo-infinite to be the true Infinite; but my assertion, which stands unrefuted, is, that his "true Infinite" is a pseudo-infinite; and that in proving it to be unknowable by us, he mistakenly fancied that he had proved this of God. * Discussions, p. 9.

66

66

"conscious of these [finite] existences, plural, relative, "and contingent, we are conscious likewise of a superior unity in which they are contained, and by which they are explained; a unity absolute as they are conditioned, "substantive as they are phenomenal, and an infinite cause as they are finite causes. This unity is God." The first two elements being the Finite and God, the third element is the relation between the Finite and God, which is that of cause and effect. These three things are immediately given in every act of consciousness, and are, therefore, apprehended as real existences by direct. intuition.

Of these alleged elements of Consciousness, Sir W. Hamilton only admits the first; the Finite element, compounded of Self and a Not-self, "limiting and conditioning one another." He denies that God is given in immediate consciousness-is apprehended by direct intuition. It is in no such way as this that God, according to him, is known to us and as an Infinite and Absolute Being he is not, and cannot be, known to us at all; for we have no faculties capable of apprehending the Infinite or the Absolute. The second of M. Cousin's elements being thus excluded, the third (the Relation between the first and second) falls with it; and Consciousness remains limited to the finite element, compounded of an Ego and a Non-ego.

In this contest it is almost superfluous for me to say, that I am entirely with Sir W. Hamilton. The doctrine, that we have an immediate or intuitive knowledge of God, I consider to be bad metaphysics, involving a false conception of the nature and limits of the human faculties, and grounded on a superficial and erroneous psychology. Whatever relates to God I hold to be matter of inference; I would add, of inference à posteriori. And in so far as Sir W. Hamilton has contributed, which he has done very materially, towards discrediting the opposite doctrine, he has rendered, in my estimation, a valuable service to philosophy. But though I assent to his conclusion, his arguments seem to me very far from

inexpugnable: a sufficient answer, I conceive, might without difficulty be given to most of them, though I do not say that it was always competent to M. Cousin to give it. And the arguments, in the present case, are of as much importance as the conclusion: not only because they are quite as essential a part of Sir W. Hamilton's philosophy, but because they afford the premises from which some of his followers, if not himself, have drawn inferences which I venture to think extremely mischievous. While, therefore, I sincerely applaud the scope and purpose of this celebrated piece of philosophical criticism, I think it important to sift with some minuteness the reasonings it employs, and the general mode of thought which it exemplifies.

The question is, as already remarked, whether we have a direct intuition of "the Infinite" and "the Absolute:" M. Cousin maintaining that we have-Sir W. Hamilton that we have not; that the Infinite and the Absolute are inconceivable to us, and, by consequence, unknowable.

It is proper to explain to any reader not familiar with these controversies, the meaning of the terms. Infinite requires no explanation. It is universally understood. to signify that, to the magnitude of which there is no limit. If we speak of infinite duration, or infinite space, we are supposed to mean duration which never ceases, and extension which nowhere comes to an end. Absolute is much more obscure, being a word of several meanings; but, in the sense in which it stands related to Infinite, it means (conformably to its etymology) that which is finished or completed. There are some things of which the utmost ideal amount is a limited quantity, though a quantity never actually reached. In this sense, the relation between the Absolute and the Infinite is (as Bentham would have said) a tolerably close one, namely a relation of contrariety. For example, to assert an absolute minimum of matter, is to deny its infinite divisibility. Again, we may speak of absolutely, but not of infinitely, pure water. The purity of water is not a fact of which, whatever degree we suppose attained, there re