438 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 
be conceived as implying that of which it is a part. Yet, Mr. Mansel writes: 
‘‘We can have no consciousness of Being in general which is not some being in 
particular ;”’ which, instead of showing, as he holds, that it ‘‘must be one thing 
out of many,” only discloses to us that condition of consciousness which compels 
us to conceive the Absolute as individual. Thus, instead of being compelled, by 
a law of the mind, to accept as truth a self-contradiction, as held by Sir William 
Hamilton; and instead of being under duty ‘‘to think of God as personal” and 
“to believe him infinite,” in the face of doctrines which show that we can do 
neither, as held by Mr. Mansel; we find that the conditions of consciousness 
leave us no choice but to conceive the Absolute and Infinite as individual. The 
conclusions of these philosophers show that, though we may blind ourselves with 
misconception and error, we still cannot escape this necessity. And here we see, 
without raising any question concerning revelation, that the Infinite and Ab- 
solute has so hedged around our minds as to make a failure to perceive it an 
impossibility. That the only; conception of the Absolute that can be formula- 
ted is the one here presented is shown, not only by the fact that all others fall in- 
to self contradiction and absurdity, but also by the fact that it 1s a necessary 
product of our consciousness. 
From the conception of absolute and infinite Being here presented, it fol- 
lows as a necessary conclusion, that the laws we find prevailing around us, are of 
its production; either as a whole or in some of its aspects, and their constant en- 
forcement are the expression of its potency. As law can be conceived only as the 
product of intelligence and its enforcement as the expression of Will, this 
conception demonstrates to us that, so far as Intelligence and Will are 
concerned, our former deductions are not only legitimate, but are the 
necessary product of consciousness. As law can be conceived only as expressing 
the nature from which it proceeds, and as we find laws expressing an emotional na- 
ture, we are left no choice but to conceive the Absolute and Infinite as an emo- 
tional Being. Intelligence, Will and Emotion, are found only in combination, and 
only when attended with Consciousness; and as these four constitute Personality 
we have no choice but to conceive the Infinite and Absolute as Personal. 
But how can such a conception as this reconcile the existence of the Abso- 
lute and Infinite with the existence of the relative and finite? How cana con- 
ception of the existencof one sole Being be reconciled with the multiplied forms 
of concrete Being, with which we are so familiar? This brings us face to face 
with a third great problem of philosophy, which has been discussed since the 
days of Aristotle, and about which volumes of elaborate error have been written, 
besides the fallacies of Mr. Spencer on this subject. This problem is no less 
than the relation of Subject and Object. Here we need not quote from 
the elaborate former discussions; a statement of what appears to be manifest truth, 
lying openly on the face of things, will we believe be found to make it so plain 
and comprehensible as to leave no room for discussion. Upon this subject, it 
must be observed, that past error has arisen from a misconception of what 
