New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-11-26

horn out of the finite" This proposition appears
IN ne ANYTHING but evident" but Let US see what
rendnrsi II evident 70 Mr. +. at is evident" he
savs because il is only in this way that any con-
scious communication between these opposite uni
versa spiritual causes can be effected, or --soihe
thing else which we shall quote by and by.
The logic of this sentence is not to be paTaleled
ont of Mr. Frothingham's book, where, however,
il exists in such abundance as fairly 70 drown
thought 1t is the logic of a man who should say
tina, "the house must DO built because II 1t should
not be built it would remain unbuilt." Undoubt-
edly. and it takes no conjurer TO discover that. II
The house is not built, it will remain unbuilt; bnt
that is the very last reason any sane mind would
urge for building it, So, unless Mr.. rs two ao-
solutcs or two universals should be married, they
would remain unmarried: but that is why
they should be married. Very much less does II Of
fer an "evident' reason why being married, the ih'
finite shoudt turn out husband and the finite turn out
wife, So far as evidence goes The "hnte" is Just a.
ready to proclaim itself male, and the g." INFINITE 10
confess itself female; and the most cogent a
pr,ori reason binds them both 10 confess them
selves neither male nor female. For. according 70
! N.Y. r., minnie Ola Elllte wv d"S'AN'Nj
subsi.tng substitutes, as uncompromislng, there
! fore. as the Kilkenny cats; while husband and wife
are terms OF relation merely, subsisting iy each
others deficiency tie need Of each to me DINER
! Clearly, then, Mr. F.'s two uncompromis.ng ALSO
lutes disdain any relatively each 10 the other, above
all irgs q connssl relatively; unless, indeed be
is prepared to allece latent conugal significance
| in the mutual annihilation practised by those
mythical cats of Kilkenny. II is unquesionable,
as Mr. F. reasons, that if A and Is never
marry they will never become husband
and wife. But how is it evident
| from that. that if they should marry, \ would be
husband, and wifel Yet thisis the sum total OF
Mr.. rs logical stock in trade when lie would per-
suade us "that infinite and finite can only be
united in an individual begot.en Of the infinite and
born of the finite" We admit as he claims that
unless they ole some way united they cannot inter-
commune; but that idle pattude furnishes no cine
to the sexual distribution Of the parties TO the
union. II IL very plain to my understanding that
if eat no supper tonight shall go TO bed supper
less; but how does M. rockingham feel himself
authorized by that reasoning TO conclude that ]
shall sup on woodcocki Yet this is exactly, and
reasoning he himself employs TO convince the
world that God is begotten and born OF the Infinite
as father and the finite as mother.
We ended our quotation from M F., as the
reader will remember, in the middle Of sentence,
with the conjunction or. Now, the words which
follow that conjunction are these: that any def
mite CONSCIOUSNESS can be realized in God" Mr..
F's entire meaning, then, runs taus: the marriage
Of Infinite and finite cav only 10 effected through
an individual born Of that marragc Why1 "Bc-
cause ii is only in this way that any conscious CON-
municaton can be effected between these opposl'es,
or any definite consciousness be realized Ill God.
The abysses Of inanity disclosed in tbs logic
are little short of heartrcnding. II is as If one
should say "thc union of brandy and wu,cr IN one
stomach can only be effected through stomach
begotten and born OF such union, because il
: is only in this way that any union can
,s effected or--that the squarinc of the circle can
r be accompl she'd What a demure, dishonest lit
tie "or' II is to DC surc' and what would you say
$ 70 man who should endcavor TO fob of that au-
, ilacious rgamaroe upon you essential wisdom ?
S Wei. Mr.. F.s fundamental philosophy is an unrc-
deemed tissue Of like precious rismarole and what
cminony due to the other. No doubt Mr.. +. is all
unconscou ofthe Inystifcaton he is putting upon
tic public. We wish he We're less so, indeed, so far
az our comfort is concerned, for then we should let
him alone; but all unconscious as he is Of the fact
he is nevertheless practicng one Of the grosscstim-
positions upon common sense that ever claimed the
+ sanction either of PHI ilosOpby or science.
+ For what is Mr.. F.'s fundamental purpose il is
to demonstrate the tripersonaty OF God, by show
, ing that one-third Of the Divine personality being
given, together with a something aJsolatcly OPP
posed thereto, the remaining two-hrds avail them
selves Of an impossible and iaconeevable coIjunc-
ton Of these oppositcs TO wiFele themselves into
final life or Consciousness. And when he proceeds
apparently to reason out this moDstrous doctrine,
what do we find him doing' Nothing either more
CT lcss than trying TO prove his premises by reas-
serton OF his conclusion, and his conclusion by a
reaSsertion of his premises. Iwo-tiirds Of the
Divine personality he says, must be contingent for
their existence, first, upon an absolute contrariety
between some pre6xistent good and evil, and then
upoa subsequent marriage Of these absolutely
contririous quantities; why? Because without mar.
, rage TO communion can be possible between things
SO re'lprocdlly ndttIuli nor VIII Oou DlnheI
r be able to attain TO consciousness But this
last assertion is exactly what Mr. F.s readers re-
qnire him 10 prove before he assumes its truth
to prove anything else. He undertook 10 show
them that the Divine consciousness or life was
dependent upon certain marriage between good
and evil; and to establish this marriage therefore,
n the obvious logical necessity Of his position. His
entire position seems indeed to the reader very dis