McCosh, also, though evidently with some hesitation, teaches that "we can conceive _proportion_ in space, and if we take any of these proportional sections, and divide it into two, thought will compel us to say that the two make up the whole. In this sense the _parts_ make up the whole--that is, the subsections make up the section. If the question be extended beyond this, and it be asked, Is infinite space made up of parts? I answer, that as we can have no adequate notion of infinite space, so we can not be expected to answer all the questions which may be put regarding it. _It is certain that neither infinite space nor finite space is made up of separate parts._ We can speak intelligibly of _proportions_ in finite space, and determine their relations to each other and the whole. I tremble to speak of the proportions of infinite space, lest I be using language which has or can have no proper meaning, and the signification attached to which by me or others might be altogether inapplicable to such a subject. Still there are propositions which we might intelligibly use. It is self-evident that _any proportion of space must be less than infinite space_. And if infinite space can be conceived as having _proportions_, and we could conceive all these proportions, then these proportions would be equal to the _whole_!"[88] Well may the author say that he is "in a region dark and pathless;" for the language here employed "can have no proper meaning" in regard to infinite space. Well may he "tremble to speak of _the proportions of infinite space_," for what can proportion (_pro_, for _portio_, a part) mean except a numerical relation of parts? Proportions--numerical relations--are measurable quantities, therefore finite quantities, and no addition of finite quantities, can make the infinite. What confusion and contradiction is here wrought by this word-jugglery with "the whole and parts" of space! Cousin, also, falls into the same inaccuracy and confusion. He tells us that "human reason can conceive of a space determined and limited,"[89] therefore divisible, measurable, and _finite_; and yet at the same time he teaches that "space is illimitable, absolutely continuous, an indivisible unity."[90] And now let us note the contradictions which flow from this confounding of space with extension, and both with immensity. Space is cognized _à posteriori_, space is cognized _à priori_. Space has parts and proportions, space has no parts or proportions. Space is divisible, space is indivisible--an absolute unity. Space is finite, space is infinite. Space is susceptible of exact measurement, space is immeasurable--that is, absolute immensity.