[AX] Hamilton's distinction is in principle the same as that which we have given in our previous remarks (pp. 18, 19). He says, "A conviction is incomprehensible when there is merely given to us in consciousness--_That its object is_ ([Greek: hoti esti]), and when we are unable to comprehend through a higher notion or belief _Why or How it is_ ([Greek: dioti esti])."--(Reid's Works, p. 754.) We would distinguish between _why_ and _how_, between [Greek: dioti], and [Greek: pos]. We can give no reason _why_ two straight lines cannot enclose a space; but we can comprehend _how_ they cannot. We have only to form the corresponding image, to see the manner in which the two attributes coexist in one object. But when I say that I believe in the existence of a spiritual being who sees without eyes, I cannot conceive the _manner_ in which seeing coexists with the absence of the bodily organ of sight. We believe that the true distinction between knowledge and belief may ultimately be referred to the presence or absence of the corresponding intuition; but to show this in the various instances would require a longer dissertation than our present limits will allow. We may believe _that_ a thing is, without being able to conceive _how_ it is. I believe _that_ God is a person, and also _that_ He is infinite; though I cannot conceive _how_ the attributes of personality and infinity exist together. All my knowledge of personality is derived from my consciousness of my own finite personality. I therefore believe in the coexistence of attributes in God, in some manner different from that in which they coexist in me as limiting each other: and thus I believe in the fact, though I am unable to conceive the manner. So, again, Kant brings certain counter arguments, to prove, on the one side, that the world has a beginning in time, and, on the other side, that it has not a beginning. Now suppose I am unable to refute either of these courses of argument, am I therefore compelled to have no belief at all? May I not say, I believe, in spite of Kant, _that_ the world has a beginning in time, though I am unable to conceive _how_ it can have so begun? What is this, again, but a belief in an absolute reality beyond the sphere of my relative knowledge?