andthisisan’absolute’whichisperfectlycompatiblewithanycomplexityofrelations。Theclueisgivenbygettingholdofanybitwhateveroftheactualweb，notbygettingintosometranscendentalworldbeyond。Theerrorofsupposingthatwemustfindan’Absolute’somewhere，andthatwecannotfinditinanypartofourexperience，isthesameaswouldbetheerrorofsupposingthatbecausewecannotfixapointinabsolutespace，wecannotgetanyvalidspacemeasures。ThecentreofthesunorGreenwichobservatorywilldoequallywell，thoughwecannotevenspeakintelligiblyoftheirabsolutepositionintheuniverse。Togiveascientificaccountofastronomywedonotrequireanabsolutecentreofspace。ThisiswhatItaketobeimpliedinKant’sargumentabouttheideaofGod。Wecannotgettoan’absolute’Beingoutsideoftheuniverse，butthewholemustberegardedasasingleandself-supportingsystem。ThisargumentisdistortedintheelaborateargumentationsofHamiltonandManselagainsttheattemptstogettoanabsoluteBeingoutsideofthingsingeneral。Suchanabsoluteastheyattackisdoubtlessanabsurdity；butneitherarewe，astheyurge，compelledtobelieveinit。Ifwestillusetheologicallanguage，wemustsaythatGodisnotaBeingapartfromtheuniverse，butimpliedintheuniverse；thegroundofallthings，theimmanentprinciplewhose’livingraimentistheworld。’Millofcourseholdsthatwemustabandon’transcendentalism’orthesearchfor’thingsinthemselves’outsideofthephenomenalworld。Manseloftenseemstoagree。Philosopherswhoindulgeinthesefreakstry，hesays，toliftupthecurtainoftheirownbeingtoviewthepicturewhichitconceals。’Likethepainterofold，theyknewnotthatthecurtainisthepicture。’99*Thatsoundslikegoodpositivismorphenomenalism。Itshouldgivethedeathblowtoall’ontology。’Heassuresusoverandoveragainthatthe’Infinite’
isa’merenegationofthought’；100*thatcontradictionsarisewheneverweattempttotranscendthelimitsofexperience；thathumanreasonissofarfrombringabletoconstructa’ScientificTheology，independentofandsuperiortoRevelation，thatitcannotevenreadthealphabetoutofwhichthatTheologymustbeframed。’101*Wecanknowthelawsofnatureorthephenomena，butwecanknownothingofthesubstanceornoumenonwhichliesbehindthem。Then，isthenaturalquery，whynotleaveitoutofaccountaltogether？Whyventureintothisregion，where，asManseladmits，wefindonly’antinomies’or，’contradictoryinconceivables’？Whynot，inshort，beagnosticslikeMrHerbertSpencer，whobasedhisFirstPrinciplesontheHamilton-Manseldoctrine？Thisgivesthesecretofthewholeprocedure。
’Thecardinalpoint，’saysMansel，’ofSirW。Hamilton’sphilosophy……istheabsolutenecessity，underanysystemofphilosophywhatever，ofacknowledgingtheexistenceofasphereofbelief，beyondthelimitsofthesphereofthought。’102*
Faith，then，remainswhenreasondisappears，thoughfaithcannotsolvethedoubtssuggestedbyreason。103*What’faith’tellsus，infact，isthatwemustbelieveoneoftwopropositions，thoughwecannotconceivethepossibilityofeither。Canitpossibly，weask，muchmatterwhetherwebelievethatthereisorisnotanXofwhomnothingmorecanbeintelligiblysaid？A
beliefwhichextendsbeyond’thesphereofthought’isabeliefwhichwecanaffordtoleavetoitself。ButManselhastodeclarethatweareforcedtobelievewherewecannotevenproperlythink。’WearecompelledbytheconstitutionofourmindstobelieveintheexistenceofanabsoluteandinfiniteBeing，’104*though，aswelearn，to’thinkoftheinfinite’isreallyanegationofthought。Adecisiontoacceptoneofthecontradictorybeliefsisyetofthehighestpracticalimportance。
TheschemesofFreeWillandFatalism，saysHamilton，105*are’theoreticallybalanced，’thoughthefatalistinconceivabilityisthe’lessobtrusive’；but’practically’wemustacceptfree-willonpenaltyofadmittingthemorallawtobe’amendaciousimperative。’Thatis，rightandwrongbecomemeaninglessunlessyouacceptoneoftwoequallyinconceivabledoctrines。SoManseldeclaresfreewilltobe’certaininfact’though’inexplicableintheory。’106*Why’certain，’if，ashealsodeclares，itispartofthe’fundamentalmystery’ofthecoexistenceoftheFiniteandtheInfinite？107*AccordingtoMansel，again，thedenialthataninfiniteBeingexists，issimplytheacceptanceofoneoftwo’equallyinconceivablealternatives。’108*Itis，hedeclares，’ourduty’tothinkofGodas’personal’andtobelievethatheis’infinite。’109*Itisaduty，then，toacceptasacertaintywhatreasondeclarestobeonlyoneoftwoequallyprobablealternatives。
Thegeneralattitudeisfamiliarenough。Pascalhasputitinhisfamous’wager。’Believeathingbecauseitisimpossible。Youmustbackoneside；andreasonistooimbeciletosettlewhich。
Thengiveupreasoning。Theargumentispersuasiveifnotlogicallyconvincing。Hamiltonwastoomuchofaphilosopherandarationalisttoacceptitinthatform。Hisapplicationremainedambiguous。Probablyhewouldhaveapprovedarathervaguetheism，whichmightbeinterpretedintermsofmanyreligiouscreeds。
Mansel，unluckily，hadtogetfromhisphilosophytothepositionofstrictAnglicanorthodoxy；fromthecontradictoryinconceivablestotheThirty-nineArticles。Hismethodofperformingthisfeathaslittleinterestnow；butImustnoticeitenoughtoshowtherelationtoMill。
VI。REVEALEDRELIGION
HowisthisInfiniteandAbsoluteBeingtobebroughtintoanyrelationwhateverwithfacts？How，byacceptingoneoftwoequallyinconceivablealternatives，canwethrowanylightuponthetruthofahistoricalstatement？Manselproteststhatheisnotarguingastothetruthofanyparticularrevelation。ThoughheisnotboundtoprovethetruthoftheChristianrevelation，heisclearlyboundtoshowthatarevelationisprobable，andtosuggestthecriterionsbywhichitsrealitymustbetested。A
religion，asKanthadsaid，couldnotbetruewhichconflictedwithmorality。110*Ifmoralitybindsmetobemerciful，andagodordersmetobecruel，hecannotbethetrueGod。ThedeistTindalhadarguedlongagothatJoshuacouldnotbejustifiedbyadivinecommandinexterminatingtheCanaanites。111*Inansweringthisdifficulty，Manselhitupontheunluckyphrase’MoralMiracles。’112*A’moralmiracle，’aconversionofabadactintoagoodone，was，headmitted，notthekindofexperimenttobeusedtoooften。Everyscoundrelcanwork’miracles’ofthatkind。Hecanbreakthedivinelawthoughhecannotbreakthe’lawofnature。’Howarewetoknowthatinagivencasethedivinelawhasbeensuspendedbythesupremerulerandnotreallybrokenbythewickedsubject？BywhatlogicalfeatcanweshowtheidentityofJehovahwiththeAbsoluteandInfinite？Thedeityofjoshuawasfranklyanthropomorphic：thegenerallyinvisibledeityofatribe。Wecanjudgeofhischaracteraswecanjudgeofthecharacterofjoshuahimself，orofthecharacterofBaal，orMoloch，orZeus。IfwearguethatallthedeitiesrepresentanimperfectfeelingafterasupremeBeing，ourjudgmentwouldnotbeaffected。Thedeitywouldstillbeimperfect。Thecommandsobeyedwerestillcruelandimmoral，asconceivedatthetime。ToarguethattheyweregoodbecausesomehoworotherJehovahwastheInconceivableseemstobetooobviousafallacyevenforaBamptonLecturer。Manseldenouncesthe’morbidhorrorofwhattheyphilosophersarepleasedtocallAnthropomorphism。’
’Fools’todreamthatmancanescapefromhimself，thathumanreasoncandrawaughtbutahumanportraitofGod。’113*Theyreallyarguethattheportraithasatanyrateveryuglyfeatures，anddoubtwhetheritispossibletodrawanyportraitwhateveroftheInconceivable。
Manselmakesplaywiththis’antinomy。’TheGodofhisphilosophyistooinconceivabletobeamorallawgiver。But，saysMansel，heisalsojehovah。Jehovah，itisreplied，isimmoral。
But，saysMansel，heisalsotheInconceivable。Thissingularmodeofeludingdifficultiescanofcoursebeexpressedinedifyinglanguage。The’caviller，’forexample，hadobjectedto’vicariouspunishment。’Manselsays114*thatthissupposesthatnothingcanbecompatible’withtheboundlessgoodnessofGod，whichisincompatiblewiththelittlegoodnessofwhichmanmaybeconsciousinhimself。’Theingeniousargument，inspiteofthiswayofputtingit，excitedMill’sveryjustifiablewrath。
’I，’hesaid，’willcallnobeinggood，whoisnotwhatImeanwhenIapplythatepithettomyfellow-creatures；andifsuchabeingcansentencemetohellfornotsocallinghim，tohellI
willgo。’115*Manselisamazedatthis’extraordinaryoutburstofrhetoric’；hewillnot’pausetocommentonitstemperandgoodtaste’；buthesuggestsaparallel。116*Itisthatofan’inexperiencedson’takingmoraladvicefroman’experiencedfather，’orbelievingthattheeldermanisactingrightlythoughhismotivesarenotfullyintelligibletotheyounger。This，asMillreplies，117*assumesthatthefatheris’good’inthehumansense，althoughwithmorewisdomorknowledge。Tomaketheparallelcloseweshouldhavetosupposeasonwhoonlyknowsthatitisanequalchancewhetherhisfatherexistsornot，andistoldbysomebodywhoisequallyignorantthatthefatherdesireshimtocutaman’sthroatandappropriatehiswife。IfthemoralityofGodbeabsolutelyinscrutable，wemustfallbackupontheconclusionthatweareentitledtocriticisenotthemoralcontentsbuttheexternalevidencesofareligion。118*
Manseltriestocompromise。Wemayarguefromthemoralityofreligionwithinlimits；theargumentmayprovethatareligioncannotbedivine；butnotthatitisdivine。Forthatwemustgoto’externalfacts。’119*OurknowledgeofGod，hestillasserts，isderivablefromour’moralandintellectualconsciousness’；fromthe’constitutionandcourseofnature’andfromrevelation。Thesegenerallyagree。Whentheyappeartodiffer，wemustnotsettleaprioriwhichistogiveway。120*
MrHerbertSpencer，asManalthinks，wentwrongbecausehetookonlythe’negativeposition’ofHamilton’sphilosophy，anddidnotsee，forexample，thatthebelief’inapersonalGodisimperativelydemandedbythefactsofourmoralandemotionalconsciousness。’121*Manselwastryingtoescapefromhisownlogicundertheshelterof’vaguegeneralities。’MrHerbertSpencer，Ithink，wasperfectlyrightinholdingthatwhenourDeityisthe’Unknowable，’hecannotbemadetotakesideseveninamoralcontroversyandcertainlynotidentifiedwiththeanthropomorphicdeitiesofpopularmythology。
TheHamilton-Manselcontroversyhasbecomeawearinesstotheflesh。Theinterestwhichitstillpossessesisonlyintheillustrationoftheconflictbetweendifferentlinesofdevelopment。ThepositionofHamiltonandhisdisciplemeansadesperateattempttoescapefromapressingdilemma。Kant’stheologyrepresentsthedeisticrationalismoftheeighteenthcentury。Themetaphysicalargumentnecessarilytendstosomeformofpantheism，suchasthatofwhichSpinozaisthemostcompleterepresentative。CarryoutthelogicandGodisidentifiedwithNature，andisnotabeingwhocanbeconceivedasinterferingwiththelawsofNature。Thegrowthofsciencehadmadeitessentialtowidenthetheologicalconceptions，andtoinvestthesupremerulerwithattributescommensuratewiththenewuniverse，whichhadbeengrowingbothinvastnessandregularity。Theresultofattemptingtofulfilthatconditionwasinconsistentwiththecommon-sensetheologyoftheScottishphilosophy，whichtried，byhelpof’intuitions，’topreservea’personaldeity，’abeingstillindividualandthereforeconceivableasinterfering；