To say that the finite is comprehensible in and by itself, and the infinite is incomprehensible in and by itself, is to make an assertion utterly at variance both with psychology and logic. The finite is no more comprehensible _in itself_ than the infinite. "Relatives are known only in and through each other."[340] "The conception of one term of a relation necessarily implies that of the other, it being the very nature of a relative to be thinkable only through the conjunct thought of its correlative." We comprehend nothing more completely than the infinite; "for the idea of illimitation is as clear, precise, and intelligible as the idea of limitability, which is its basis. The propositions "A is X" "A is not X," are equally comprehensible; the conceptions A and X are in both cases positive data of experience, while the affirmation and negation consist solely in the copulative or disjunctive nature of the predication. Consequently, if X is comprehensible, so is not--X; if the finite is comprehensible, so is the infinite."[341] Whilst denying that the infinite can by us be _known_, Hamilton tells us he is "far from denying that it is, must, and ought to be _believed_."[342] "We must believe in the infinity of God." "Faith--belief--is the organ by which we apprehend what is beyond knowledge."[343] We heartily assent to the doctrine that the Infinite Being is the object of faith, but we earnestly deny that the Infinite Being is not an object of knowledge. May not knowledge be grounded upon faith, and does not faith imply knowledge? Can we not obtain knowledge through faith? Is not the belief in the Infinite Being implied in our knowledge of finite existence? If so, then God as the infinite and perfect, God as the unconditioned Cause, is not absolutely "the unknown." [Footnote 340: Hamilton's "Logic," p. 73.] [Footnote 341: North American Review, October, 1864, article "Conditioned and the Unconditioned," pp. 441, 442.] [Footnote 342: Letter to Calderwood, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 530.] [Footnote 343: "Lectures on Metaphysics," vol. ii. p. 374.]