SOUNDINGS 



that there is no being that we can define or con- 

 ceive of in terms of man. Nothing in the finite can 

 help us in dealing with the infinite. The Infinite, the 

 Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, cannot be a being 

 without sharing the limitations of being, or without 

 being subject to the bounds of time and space. If 

 God is everywhere, He is nowhere; if He is all- 

 powerful, his power has no contrary, and hence 

 ceases to exist. One after another the human and 

 personal attributes we ascribe to Him disappear 

 when we try to conceive of Him in terms of the 

 infinite. The infinite is equivalent to negation. There 

 are no terms in which we can define the ether; it is 

 the negative of all things that have length and 

 breadth and thickness, or motion or rest or sub- 

 stance, or friction or cohesion, or place or power. An 

 infinite being is as much a contradiction of terms as 

 a square or plane sphere would be. If God is a per- 

 son, with human-like attributes and emotions, — 

 though we call them divine, — it is legitimate to ask, 

 Where is He? where was He before the solar systems 

 took form? where will He be after they have again 

 become formless? 



Our inevitable anthropomorphism prefigures the 

 Infinite as superman; He is man magnified to in- 

 finity. He is the supreme king or ruler of the uni- 

 verse. We dream of seeing Him face to face; He has 

 eyes, ears, hands, feet, and the emotions of love, 

 anger, pity, and the like. Man thus imposes his 



279 



