Note AX — PREFACE (continued 2)

Hamilton’s distinction is in principle the same as that which we have given in our previous remarks (pp. 18, 19). He says, “A conviction is incomprehensible when there is merely given to us in consciousness—That its object is (ὅτι ἔστι), and when we are unable to comprehend through a higher notion or belief Why or How it is (διότι ἔστι).”—(Reid’s Works, p. 754.) We would distinguish between why and how, between διότι, and πῶς. We can give no reason why two straight lines cannot enclose a space; but we can comprehend how they cannot. We have only to form the corresponding image, to see the manner in which the two attributes coexist in one object. But when I say that I believe in the existence of a spiritual being who sees without eyes, I cannot conceive the manner in which seeing coexists with the absence of the bodily organ of sight. We believe that the true distinction between knowledge and belief may ultimately be referred to the presence or absence of the corresponding intuition; but to show this in the various instances would require a longer dissertation than our present limits will allow.