THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNKNOWABLE. 435 
process, and proceed to look elsewhere for the truth. That which has the ap- 
pearance of truth, in this particular, lies patent on the face of things, and it seems 
wonderful that trained and thinking minds should have overlooked it. It may be 
formulated thus: Whatever exists within the scope of our conceptions, that we 
can conceive as bounded only by itself, and which is not wholly embraced within 
our conceptions, must be held to be infinite; and that part of which we can con- 
ceive symbolizes to us that of which we cannot. An illustration wil! make this 
clear. Space and Time, and Quantity in its abstract sense, have been held by all 
thinkers and all mankind to be infinite. We can conceive of no Space as bounded 
without at the same time conceiving that there is other Space beyond the bound- 
ary. Wecan conceive of no Time as bounded, neither past nor future, without 
at the same time conceiving that there is other Time beyond the boundary. We 
can conceive of no Quantity so great that it might not be greater and if 
none so small thatit might not be less. Our conceptions cannot entertain 
any limits to any of these, except it be limits imposed by the same 
thing lying beyond the limitations; yet our conceptions will not embrace the 
unhmited. Mr. Spencer gets a faint shadow of this idea, and holds that we, of 
necessity, construct a mental symbol for the infinite and absolute which stands for 
it in our conceptions as the correlate of the finite; and he thus presents the best 
possible criticism upon his own doctrine,above quoted, for such symbol is certainly 
unclassed and unclassable. But from this idea of a symbol, which is a true idea, 
he falls into the surprising error of declaring that we should treat such symbolic 
notion as utterly without resemblance to that for which it stands.” Now, as the 
Space, Time and Quantity which we conceive to lie beyond the uttermost grasp of 
our conceptions, can be conceived only as being exactly like the Space, Time and 
Quantity lying within our conceptions, it follows that, if we treat that within as a 
symbol for that without, we must not only not regard our symbolas utterly unlike 
that for which it stands, but the conditions of consciousness leave us no choice 
but to conceive it as exactly like that for which it stands. Thus, as the Space, 
Time and Quantity within our conceptions stands as a correct and truthful repre- 
sentation of the Infinite Space, Time and Quantity, beyond they show us how 
our formula makes infinity comprehensible. 
In regard to the Absolute, we need not quote so extensively from these great 
thinkers as we have done in regard to the Infinite; yet we must make a few ex- 
tracts from their doctrines. Mr. Mansel writes: ‘‘A second characteristic of 
consciousness is that it is only possible in the form of a relation. There must be 
a subject or person conscious, and an object, or thing of which he is conscious 
** | The destruction of either is the destruction of consciousness itself. % * 
* To be conscious of the Absolute, as such, we must know that an object which 
is given in relation to our consciousness is identical with one, which exists in its 
own nature out of all relation to consciousness; but to know this identity, we 
must be able to compare the two together; and such a comparison is itself a con- 
tradiction. We are, in fact, required to compare that of which we are conscious 
