is clear and distinct; not to be confounded with any other idea.
But when we attempt to go further, to give a logical description of Deity, its nature and essence; to define and classify its attributes; to make a definite Conception of God, as of the finite objects of the senses or the understanding, going into minute details, then we have nothing but our own subjective notions, which do not, of necessity, have an objective reality corresponding thereto. All men may know God as the Infinite. His nature and essence are past finding out. But we know God only in part—from the manifestations of divinity, seen in nature, felt in Man; manifestations of Matter and Spirit. Are these the whole of God; is Man his measure? Then is He exhausted, and not infinite. We affix the terms of human limitation to God, and speak of his Personality; some limiting it to one, others extending it to three, to seven, to thirty, or to many millions of persons. Can such terms apply to the Infinite? We talk of a personal God. If thereby we only deny that he has the limitations of unconscious Matter, no wrong is done. But our conception of Personality is that of finite personality; limited by human imperfections; hemmed in by Time and Space; restricted by partial emotions, displeasure, wrath, ignorance, caprice. Can this be said of God? If Matter were conscious, as Locke thinks it possible, it must predicate Materiality of God as persons predicate Personality of him. We apply the term impersonal. If it mean God has not the limitations of our personality it is well. But if it mean that he has those of unconscious Matter, it is worse than the other term. Can God be personal and conscious, as Joseph and Peter; unconscious and impersonal, as a moss or the celestial ether? No man will say it. Where then is the philosophic value of such terms?
The nature of God is past finding out. “There is no searching of his understanding.” As the Absolute Cause, God must contain in himself, potentially, the ground of consciousness, of personality—yes, of unconsciousness and impersonality. But to apply these terms to Him seems to me a vain attempt to fathom the abyss of the Godhead and report the soundings. Will our line reach to the bottom of God? There is nothing on Earth, or in Heaven,
