26 ? 
important point is stated in few words. Mr. Mansel says— 
“ If all human attributes are conceived under the conditions of 
difference, and relation, and time, and personality, we cannot 
represent in thought any such attribute magnified to infinity ; 
for this, again, is to conceive it as finite and infinite at the 
same time.” But where is there any difficulty in such a con- 
ception ? It is not necessary to conceive of an object as 
infinite in all respects, because it is infinite in one. For 
example, it is not necessary to think God infinitely extended, 
because we think Him infinitely powerful. His omnipresence 
is not infinite extension : otherwise, the universe must be con- 
ceived of as infinite, as well as the Deity. But Mr. Mansel 
confounds all such distinctions, and leads on to the notion that 
“ our soundest knowledge ” of the Most High “ is to know that 
we know Him not as indeed He is, neither can know Him : and 
our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, when we 
confess without confession that His glory is inexplicable, His 
greatness above our capacity and reach.” 
If this meant no more than that our thoughts, as they are not 
iufinite, cannot span the full greatness of God, it would be 
true, but it means that we really cannot judge of anything in 
God whatever ! When, for example, it is said that “God is 
love,” we cannot, it seems, in the nature of things, know what 
the statement means ! We cannot begin, as Christ 
teaches us, with the love of a prodigal's father, and reason 
up to the heart of the absolute Father ! We cannot 
know, it would appear, that what God feels is just what man 
feels, ouly God's love is perfect and man's every way imperfect ! 
If a theological teacher shall demand that we believe in the 
most flat contradictions about God we are not to refuse, on 
rational grounds, because we cannot, on these grounds, know, 
whether his ideas are true or false ! Is not this an attempt, by 
means of reason, to banish this very reason from the domain 
of theology ? On the part of such writers as Hume it was 
the attempt to banish theology from the domain of reason. If 
the attempt is successful in either of its aspects, woe to the 
soul in which such success is secured. It is left destitute of 
all but an irrational faith. 
There is a modification of these ideas which we have been 
discussing that constitutes a tremendous bar in the way of 
true prayer. It. represents God, in virtue of His infinity 
and perfection, as so different from all that we think of Him 
when prayer seems reasonable, that belief in His responding 
to our requests must be groundless. The varied notions that 
go to constitute this bar generally combine in a certain idea 
