3. The full illustration of this point would be Anselm's _a priori_ argument for the existence of God. His statement of it should, however, be so modified as to appear, not as an _a priori_ argument for the existence of God, but as an amplified declaration of the fact, that the existence of God is a first principle of Reason; and as such, can no more be denied than the multiplication table. Objection.--This doctrine degrades God to the level of the finite; both being alike conditioned. Answer.--By no means; as will be seen from the two following points. 1. It is universally acknowledged that God must be self-existent, which means, if it means anything, that the existence of God is _beyond his own control_; or, in other words, that self-existence is an _a priori_ elemental principle, which conditions God's existing at all. 2. In the two instances under consideration, the word condition has entirely different significations. God is conditioned only by _Himself_. Not only is this conditioning not a limitation, properly speaking, but the very absence of limitation. The fact that He is absolute and infinite, is a condition of His existence. Man's conditions are the very opposite of these. He is relative, instead of absolute; finite, instead of infinite; dependent, instead of self-existent. Hence he differs in _kind_ from God as do his conditions. Such being the function of the Pure Reason, it is fully competent to solve the difficulties raised by Sir William Hamilton and his followers; and the statement of such solution is the work immediately in hand. Much of the difficulty and obscurity which have, thus far, attended every discussion of this subject, will be removed by examining the definitions given to certain terms;--either by statement, or by implication in the use made of them;--by exposing the errors involved; and by clearly expressing the true signification of each term. By way of criticism the general statement may be made,--that the Limitists--as was natural from their rejection of the faculty of the Pure Reason--use only such terms, and in such senses, as are pertinent to those subjects which come under the purvey of the Understanding and the Sense; but which are entirely impertinent, in reference to the sphere of spiritual subjects. The two following phases of this error are sufficient to illustrate the criticism. 1. The terms Infinite and Absolute are used to express abstractions. For instance, "_the infinite_, from a human point of view, is merely a name for the absence of those conditions under which thought is possible." "It is thus manifest that a consciousness of the Absolute is equally self-contradictory with that of the Infinite."--_Limits of Religious Thought_, pp. 94 and 96. If asked "Absolute" what? "Infinite" what? Will you allow person, or other definite term to be supplied? Mansel would reply--No! no possible answer can be given by man.