Editorial note — LESSON VI.
Reading edition
[Footnote A: Fiske, "Studies in Religion," p. 104; Works, Vol. IX. The parts within single quotation marks are from Spencer, and quoted by Fiske.]
[Footnote B: Fiske Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. IV, p. 227. Also Professor Le Conte says: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality." ("Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," p. 337.)]
[Footnote C: "Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought," 1902, p. 337. The context is also worthy of being brought into view: "No one, we admit, can form a clear conception of how immanence of Deity is consistent with personality, and yet we must accept both, because we are irresistibly led to each of these by different lines of thought. Science, following one line of thought, uncorrected by a wider philosophy, is naturally led toward the one extreme of pantheistic immanence; the devout worshiper, following the wants of his religious nature, is naturally led toward the other extreme of anthropomorphic personality. The only rational view is to accept both immanence and personality, even though we can not clearly reconcile them, i. e., immanence without pantheism, and personality without anthropomorphism."]
[Footnote D: Professor Howison in "Conception of God"—Introduction, p. 35.
The situation is well represented in the respective attitudes of Mr. Henry L. Mansel, a church of England minister, Dean of St. Paul's in fact, and author of the somewhat celebrated Brampton Lectures on "Limits of Religious Thought"—1875—; and Mr. Herbert Spencer, author of the Synthetic Philosophy. Mr. Mansel in his second lecture, after dealing with the difficulties attending upon finite minds dealing with questions of the "absolute," "infinite" and "first cause;" declares that there is a contradiction in the conception of the infinite as personal (pp. 84-85): and yet in the third lecture he says, "It is our duty to think of God as personal; and it is our duty to believe that he is infinite"; notwithstanding, as Mr. Mansel admits, "we cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, as our conception of personality involves attributes apparently contradictory to the notion of infinity." (p. 106):
Commenting upon this very passage Mr. Spencer says: "That this is not the conclusion here adopted (i.e., by himself) needs hardly be said. If there be any meaning in the foregoing argument, duty requires us neither to affirm nor deny personality. Our duty is to submit ourselves with all humility to the established limits of our intelligence: and not perversely to rebel against them. Let those who can, believe that there is eternal war set between our intellectual faculties and our moral obligations. I for one admit no such radical vice in the constitution of things." "First Principles" p. 111.]
[Footnote E: Studies in Religion, p. 189. Works Vol. IX.]