504 
doctrines of Hamilton’s Philosophy to theological principles — when we are 
told by him that we cannot know the infinite, I do not hesitate to say that 
the doctrines of Dean Mansel tend to beget in us an infinite despair. For 
I find our great Lord and Master telling us that our life, our eternal life, is 
actually conditioned upon our knowledge of the infinite : — “ And this is 
life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” But I apprehend there is some confusion 
here : the infinite of Dean Mansel is not the moral infinite of the Bible ; 
it is a certain mathematical infinite, an abstract conception of his own mind, 
and such an infinite we do not desire to know. The term “ infinite,” used 
as a mathematical term, has only relation to quantity and no relation to the 
spiritual. Mr. Row says that by the substitution of the word “ perfect ” 
instead, we may discharge the difficulty ; but I do not see that that will do. 
Is not God infinite in wisdom and power? Clearly He is. It is said we 
cannot know that because we are finite ; but it must not be forgotten that 
we are affiliated with the Godhead 
Mr. Row. — You are arguing just what I maintained. I have said the 
infinite is a quantitative measure. 
Mr. Poyer. — I was referring not only to what you said, but to Mansel’s 
and Hamilton’s doctrines. I agree with Mr. Row that in this controversy 
Mr. Mill (though I do not think him an ideal philosopher) has the advantage 
in regard to the possibility of our knowledge of the infinite ; but when he 
goes beyond that he is very curious, and weak, and foolish. What is his 
theory with regard to matter ? Why, matter is “ the possibility of sensa- 
tion ” ! — i. e., he says the city of Calcutta is a possibility of sensation ! 
Plowever, "do not| let "us_ get involved in metaphysics, or we shall not be 
able to escape in a hurry. And now before I sit down I have only one other 
word to offer, on transcendentalism and mysticism. These are very large 
words and very deep words, and they mean very much. I do not think 
they can be altogether disposed of by mere verbal proscription. I am. 
astonished at one thing Mr. Row has said in reference to Hegel. He says, — 
“ A similar dealing with transcendental conceptions — I dare not call it 
reasoning — induced Hegel to assert the actual existence of non-existence ; 
that Being and non-Being are the same.” 
Now that seems very like a paradox hard to get over, but I must say Hegel 
makes it perfectly plain and intelligible from his stand-point to any culti- 
vated mind. But the objection to his fundamental postulate is not so much 
the paradox, but his assumption of being as an abstraction. 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I have not had the advantage of reading this most 
admirable and suggestive paper before I came here this evening, but all that 
I have heard of it has attracted me very much. But while I feel that I can 
thoroughly sympathize with the main conclusions of Mr. Row, there are 
many details in the paper on which, as they were read, I should have been 
glad to comment at the moment, but I have not marked them down, and 
when so long a paper is read one forgets at the end the exact points which 
