tion, since personality without limit is inconceivable. But, on the other hand, it is no less true that the total elimination of anthropomorphism from the idea of God abolishes the idea itself. We do not approach the question in the spirit of those natural theologians who were so ready with their explanations of the Divine purposes. We are aware that we see as through a glass darkly,' and we do not expect to 'think God's thoughts after Him,' save in the crudest symbolic fashion. In dealing with the Infinite we are confessedly treating of that which transcends our powers of conception. Our ability to frame ideas is strictly limited by experience, and our experience does not furnish the materials for the idea of a personality which is not narrowly hemmed in by the inexorable barriers of circumstance. We therefore cannot conceive of such an idea. But it does not follow that there is no reality answering to what such an idea would be if it could be conceived. The test of inconceivability is only applicable to the world of phenomena from which our experience is gathered. It fails when applied to that which lies behind phenomena. I do not hold, for this reason, that we are justified in using such an expression as 'infinite personality' in a philosophical inquiry where clearness of thought and speech is above all things desirable. But I do hold, emphatically, that we are not debarred from ascribing a quasi psychical nature to the Deity simply because we can frame no proper conception of such a nature as absolute and infinite."

But we can conceive the idea of omnipresent personality as clearly as we can that of omnipresent space, or of Power; and one is no less incomprehen

Omnipresent Personality.

47

sible than the other. Indeed, they are but names for one and the same Power. Power is omnipresent, so is Space, Time, life, mind, will, consciousness and personality, whether comprehensible or incomprehensible. We derive only power.

Mr. Spencer says (F. P., § 20), "The personality of which each is conscious, and of which the existence is to each a fact beyond all others the most certain, is yet a thing which cannot be truly known at all; knowledge of it is forbidden by the very nature of thought." So, the inference is, that as we cannot truly know ourselves, we cannot know the Power not-ourselves. But religion would be content to know this Power as well as we know ourselves. The unit that pluralizes is a unit of Power; and there is no power in the unconscious. From the one Power came many manifestations. In man, impersonal matter is manifested along with personal mind, and unconscious, impersonal force; such as animal heat, along with conscious, personal power, such as thought and will. If there is anything in the effect that is in the cause, then human personality, as an effect, is from superhuman personality as its cause. If it be insisted that impersonal matter and unconscious force are manifestations of an impersonal and unconscious Power, like from like, then it is claimed a fortiori, that conscious, personal human mind and will are manifestations of a conscious, personal superhuman mind and will. If the cause is greater than its effects. - the underived greater than the derived - then human consciousness is from superhuman consciousness, and not from a non-existing superhuman, impersonal unconsciousness; for this would be to make the

cause less than the effect-indeed to have an effect from no cause at all; for unconsciousness is only a negative state, and not a power, and cannot be either cause or effect. Unconsciousness, the negative of consciousness, cannot be higher than the consciousness of which it is the negative. Thus the philo sophical bridge between human personality and superhuman personality, is, first, in the admitted principle, that the cause is both simpler and greater than the effect; and, second, in the proof of the unity of natural force and supernatural Power, and in the dependence of life upon antecedent life - that is, of natural life upon supernatural life. If this be not so, we must altogether discard a posteriori reasoning.

As personal beings are from personal beings, so personal being must be originally from personal Being. Personality objective in human beings is subjective personality in superhuman Power. Subjective Power manifests, or objectifies itself, in impersonal things and personal beings; the subjective is known in the objective. If Power was first, and at first Power was all, as said before, Power either created matter or materialized itself, for there is matter; Power either created mind or mentalized itself, for there is mind; Power either created life or vitalized itself, for there is life; Power either created persons or personalized itself, for there is personality. If, as we have said, cause is greater than its effects, then the cause of matter is greater than matter its effect; the cause of life is greater than life its effect; the cause of consciousness is greater than consciousness its effect; the cause of human personality is greater than human personality its effect. But only super

To Reduce the Cause Reduces the Effect. 49

human personality is greater than human personality. As positive personality from a negative impersonality, or, rather a thing present from itself absent, would be the greater from the less, which is impossible, so, the less is from the greater, when we say that, Second, having seen that to magnify the effect is to maximize the cause, so, as nothing cannot produce something, to minify the cause is to minimize the effect: as 10 − 2 = 8. As you subtract from the antecedent you subtract from the subsequent. Equals must be added to equals, or equals must be taken from equals, the less is manifested by the greater—that is, the manifestations of Power are less than the manifesting Power. If natural impersonality, as the negation or absence of personality in things is called, were derived from supernatural personality, such a derivation, if it were possible, would be consistent with the principle of the less from the greater. Keeping in mind, that what we call impersonality, whether human or superhuman, is only the negative or absence of personality, human or superhuman, we see that impersonality, whether human or superhuman, is only where personality is not Impersonality could not come from impersonality; for, if impersonality — a negative — were to come from impersonality other negative-it would be a negative from a negative; which is absurd.

-

an

As human personality is inherited from human personality as far back as human personality can be traced, is not human personality derived from superhuman personality, or phenomenal personality from nomenal personality? The derivation of personality from impersonality, if it were possible, would have

to be strongly proved, in order to disprove the law and fact of heredity of like from like; but, if like is not from like, and personality is from impersonality, then, in unlike from unlike, the Creator is impersonal instead of personal, and agnosticism dreads an im personal Power where religion worships a personal God. But a conscious effect called personality, cannot come from an unconscious cause called impersonality, as the effect would be greater than the cause; but a conscious cause does produce an unconscious effect, and the effect is less than the cause. Unconsciousness, unknown to itself, is known only to consciousness.

66

Mr. Spencer says, Some make the erroneous assumption that the choice is between personality and something lower than personality; whereas the choice is rather between personality and something higher. Is it not just possible that there is a mode of being as much transcending intelligence and Will as these transcend mechanical motion? It is true that we are totally unable to conceive any such higher being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. Have we not seen how utterly incompetent our minds are to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena? Is it not proved that this incompetency is the incompetency of the conditioned to grasp the unconditioned? Does it not follow that the ultimate cause cannot in any respect be conceived of by us because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived? And may we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever,