The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-06-16
For the National Era

penny" -'''
Il For the National Era
ONT l0GIA:
A Critique of Received Notions Concern
i ing Infnitude.
The FINITE is, and must ever be. the onl
realm of thought for created beings. IsrIy,r1
isa word that stands for no reality in the pres
ent or possible universe of the creature; and
will remain defnable by God alone. Neyerthe
less, IN our contemplation upon the myster,
beyond us, we are apt to set up some know
standard Of judgment; we adopt some finit.
unit OF measurement, which shall by infnit,
repetition embrace the conditions of the prob
lem. We assume that the unknown thin,
which we would grasp. differs from things know
able not SO much in quality aS in quantity
ETERNITY we make synonymous with unbegul
and endless TINE and then we clothe our con
ception with the metaphor of an ocean withou
shore.
| This conception, however, we may, upon ex
animation, be led to regard as not founded in
nature The finite surrounds US we can
not look beyond II. The shadow Of our facul
ties is ever cast ahead Of US. The limited may
be to ourselves illimitable and thus this realm
OF ours we mistake for part of that infinite
which is the realm of infinite intelligence
Doubtless the finite is incomprehensible by
hnite beings; doubtless they will never explore
its possibilities, nor ever reach its vanishing
boundaries But though our own being be
pnfathomable by our Immortality, let it no,
hence be inferred that it is toward absolute in.
hnity that we do thus everlastingly approx.
mate.
| Perhaps the first thing to be remembered in
commencing ourinquiry is, that finite quantities
have their numerical representatives. And hence,
the most abstract form of the question evident
y Is, Can there be an infinite number? Take
what the mathematicians call an infinite geo
metric series-an endless chain of numbers.
Increasing or decreasing by constant multi
plier or divisor. 1t is plain that each term in
the series has o value different from the value
Of every other term. The series, then, must
have least term. And this least term, if the
chain be infinite, must be nothing-this alone
renders further division impossible.
But the conclusion is inadmissibe; for each
performed division is an exact miniature of
every preceding division, and so gives its
rv"S a. the ;nfr;tssma1 when VI The sr;sm
md the microscope of an angel have long failed
TO distinguish aught from naught, still the re-
treating entity, sunk myriads of worlds below
grain of sand, is as far above nonentity as is
the sumo approximation has been made to-
ward nonentity. Such reasoning, so far from
showing that the road which leads down from
number to nothing, requires an infinite sue
icession Of steps, shows that there is no such
road Yet admitting the possibility of our ar
rival at nothing, after an infinite journey, how
shall we reascend? What power of zero will
enable us to take the first step upward
| Thus our proposed infinite series fails to fur
nsh the condition essential to its existence,
namely, that its least term shall be zero and
thus incapable of dimiuution. Moreover, were
we to take an ascending series, it would BIZ
found that to degrade the finite to mathe-
| matte point is not more difficult than to stretch
the finite beyond all circumference. Another
| objection to the hypothesis of an infinite series
is, that if each link Of the series constitutes a
part of the series, then the subtraction of that
link must lessen the infnitude or, if each link
|! does not constitute a part of the series, then
the subtraction of every link cannot lessen the
| infnitude.
Nevertheless, it is difficult for US to conceive
that number has not infinite capacity. Because
| we cannot see beyond our own nature, we deem
tue scope Of that nature wide enough for the
range Of infinite vision. Let it be borne in
mind, that by the finite is meant the condition
cd and dependent; by the infinite we can only
mean something independent Of the conditions
which attach to all finite things. If, then, we
would produce things unconditional, by aggre
CATION of things conditioned, we must do so by
releasing the finite from the limitations that be
long to its nature An infinite, composed o
fnites, may well be put down al impossible
ity-an mpossibility based on the contradiction
of its terms.
/ Let, now, this conclusion on the abstrac
question be applied to those embodiments o
the notion of infinite number, which oftenes
attract and bewilder our attention. That utte
skepticism which feels no force in the argumen
from final causes, denying the existence Of Goo
himself has sometimes assumed to derive tn,
human family from eternity. We see that sue
cessive generations of men have only derived
and dependent existence. Every generation, a
it comes and passes, is result and cause
Such, in truth, is every phenomenon in TIT
frame of nature. We are in the midst, ant
form a part, of grand system of ever-evolvin,
effects. But had the system no original? An'
do all these chains of causes hang only from
themselves or, at best, converge backward
upon one solitary chain, still acknowledging nj
other cause than eternal consequence? Reason
teaches, rather, that ancestry for the system
of things is to be sought in first cause, itsel
uncaused, unconditional, without succession ii
the mode of its existence, Interchangeable, incor
ceivable That we have found one end of
chain, is sufficient evidence that it has another
One link reveals the fnite--as the joint of
fossil marks its era in the ages past.
, We speak of the "eternal past" the " eterna
future" Such expressions seem to aim at
| definition of the absolute. They assume tha
the absolute is the same in essence with tn
dependent, and is defnablc by such words a
past 1" and " future" These words belong I
; the finite universe, and, in their widest exter
| sion, must forever represent only the Unite. b
; the eternal past or the eternal future, can b
; meant nothing other than an endless chain Q
past or of future years. Now, select, in each G
these chains, a link infinitely remote from tn
present moment link infinitely past, a lin
, infinitely future remove those links. Betwee
, the vacancies and the present moment, ther
| now stretch two chains of infinite length, bot
of them having two ascertained extremitie!
t These chains are therefore, at the same time
' | finite and infinite conclusion legitimate
: drawn from our attempt to apply the wor
e time to the definition of the word eternit,
{ Furthermore, the word past implies successior
e change, experience, and, detached from thes
D ideas, has no meaning. How can we predca,
y these properties concerning that of which "
f know nothing?
e Our argument has treated of time. Simils
4 reasoning applies to space. Both are dehn