Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/691

 GOD

f)13

GOD

infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite exten- sion that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or tlie other; and care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space being made up of parts in duration or extension are essentially finite by comparison with God's infinity. Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in tlie sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal depend- ence on that other, which the very notion of self- existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-exist- ing. Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an in- crease or diminution of perfection would be to sug- gest the absurdity of a changeable essence. It only remains, tlien, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such, i. e. no expression of positive being as such, that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent niust be infinite in all perfection. For self-existence itself is alssolute positive being, and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being.

(b) This general, and admittedly very abstract, con- clusion, as well as the reasoning which supports it, will be rendered more intelligible by a brief specific illustration of what it involves.

(i) When in speaking of the Infinite we attribute all conceivable perfections to Him we must not forget that the predicates we employ to describe perfections derive their meaning and connotation in the first in- stance from their application to finite beings; and on reflection it is seen that we must distinguish between different kinds of perfections, and that we cannot without palpable contradiction attribute all the per- fections of creatures in the same way to God. Some perfections are such that, even in the abstract, they necessarily imply or connote finiteness of being or imperfection; while some others do not of themselves necessarily connote imperfection. To the first class belong all material perfections — extension, sensibility, and the like — and certain spiritual perfections such as rationality (as distinct from simple intelligence) ; to the second class belong such perfections as being, truth, goodness, intelligence, wisdom, justice, holiness, etc. Now while it cannot be said that God is infinitely extended, or that He feels or reasons in an infinite way, it can be said that He is infinitely good, intelli- gent, wise, just, holy, etc.; in other words, while per- fections of the second class are attributed to God formally, i. e. without any change in the proper mean- ing of the predicates which express them, those of the first class can only be attributed to Him eminently and equivalenthj, i. e. whatever positive being they express belongs to God as their cause in a much higher and more excellent way than to the creatures in which they formally exist. By means of this important dis- tinction, which Agnostics reject or neglect, we are able to think and to speak of the Infinite without being guilty of contradiction, and the fact that men gener- ally — even .\gnostics themselves when off their guard — recognize and utilize the distinction is the best proof that it is pertinent and well founded. Ulti- mately it is only another way of saying that, given an infinite cause and finite effects, whatever pure perfec- tion is discovered in the effects must first exist in the cause {via aflirmalionis), and at the same time that whatever imijerfection is discovered in the effects must be excluded from the cause {via negationis vcl

cxclusionis) . These two principles do not contradict, but only balance and correct one anotlier.

(ii) Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tend- ency to think and speak of God as ij He were a magni- fied creature, more especially a magnified man; and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions; and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknow- able, and that it is really a finite, antliropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic reli- gions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncul- tured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical lan- guage in other connexions justify and recommend it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever tliinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox.

(iii) Finally it should be observed that, while pred- icating pure perfections literally both of God and of creatures, it is always understood that these predicates are true in an infinitely higher sense of God than of creatures, and that there is no thought of co-ordinating or classifying God with creatures. This is technically expressed by saying that all our knowledge of God is analogical, and that all predicates applied to God and to creatures are used analogically, not univocally (see Analogy). I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say of either with literal truth: that is a beautiful face. And this is an example of analogical predication. Beauty is literally and truly realized both in the portrait and its living original, and retains its proper meaning as applied to either ; there is suffi- cient likeness or analogy to justify literal predication, but there is not that perfect likeness or identity be- tween painted and living beauty which univocal pred- ication would imply. And similarly in the case of God and creatures. What we contemplate directly is the portrait of Him painted, so to speak, by Himself on the canvas of the universe and exhibiting in a finite degree various perfections, which, without losing their proper meaning for us, are seen to be capable of being realized in an infinite degree; and our reason compels us to infer that they must be and are so realized in Him who is their ultimate cause.

Hence we admit, in conclusion, that our knowledge of the Infinite is inadequate, and necessarily so since our minds are only finite. But this is very different from the Agnostic contention that the Infinite is alto- gether unknowable, and that the statements of Theists regarding the nature and attributes of God are so many plain contradictions. It is only by ignoring the well-recognized rules of predication that have just been explained, and consequently by misunderstand- ing and misrepresenting the Theistic position, that Agnostics succeed in giving an air of superficial plausi- bility to their own philosophy of blank negation. Anyone who understands those rules, and has learned to think clearly, and trusts his own reason and com- mon sense, will find it easy to meet and refute Agnos- tic arguments, most of which, in principle, have been anticipated in what precedes. Only one general ol)- servation need be made here, viz.: that the princi- ples to which the Agnostic philosopher must appeal in his attempt to invalidate religious knowledge would, if consistently applied, invalidate all human knowl- edge anfl lead to universal scepticism ; and it is safe to say that, unless absolute scepticism becomes the philosophy of mankind, Agnosticism will never sup- plant religion.

(2) Unity or Unicity of God. — Obviously there can