struction on his words, or (admitting these to be sometimes ambiguous) on the whole spirit of his teaching, than that he intended to declare that matter and its primary qualities had an existence out of all relation to intelligence, and that we knew this to be the case.[1] This is all that my counter-proposition contends for, and, therefore, I venture to assert that it, and all my other counter-propositions, are perfectly fair representations, both of ordinary opinion and of psychological doctrine—as far as it was possible for them to be so, considering the ambiguities, both of vulgar thinking, and of psychological science. On this point Mr Fraser has failed to make good his case.
Further, Mr Fraser remarks, "The group of propositions regarding immensity, eternity, causation, apparently contradictory, when the relation of subject and object is assumed to be absolute in knowledge, but which are fixed as necessarily in Reason as that fundamental law itself, are passed in silence" by the Institutes. I answer, that this group of propositions receive their solution only when the relation of subject and object (that is, a mind present to all things) is assumed to be absolute in knowledge, for "Immensity" and "Eternity" are mere expressions of nonsense, unless an intelligence (or subject) is conceived of along with them. When an intelligence is conceived of along with Immensity and Eternity, these become conceivable in themselves, though perhaps not conceivable by us—when no intelligence is conceived of along with them, they are absolutely inconceivable in themselves—mere absurdity and contradiction. In regard to causation, the true theory of will or cause is indicated, though not fully worked out, in the Institutes, prop. IX., obs. 13.
Finally, my reviewer is pleased to say, that in these Institutes, "we are promised the play of Hamlet, and yet Hamlet makes no appearance."—(Essays, p. 318.) It is just as probable that Mr Fraser may have misread the play-bill, as that I, the manager, should have so trifled with my audience. The play which he has supposed to be "Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet left out," was, in all likelihood "Love's Labour Lost" (upon a hard-hearted
- ↑ See above, p. 29.
