try to make you believe that they get rabbits, guinea-pigs,
pieces of string, paper, and ribbon, out of an entirely empty
top-hat. One can see how utterly barren and empty this
principle is, if one translates it into figurative language,
that is to say, into the language of religion. The Eleatic
principle would correspond to a religion in which we said
that “God is,” but beyond the fact that He “is,” He has
absolutely no character. But surely this is a wholly barren
and meagre conception of the Deity. In the Christian re-
ligion we are accustomed to hear such expressions as, not
only that “God is,” but that “God is Love,” “God is Power,”
{70} “God is Goodness,” “God is Wisdom.” Now objection
may certainly be taken to these predicates and epithets on
the ground that they are merely figurative and anthropo-
morphic. In fact, they exhibit the tendency to think non-
sensuous objects sensuously. These predicates are merely
picked up from the finite world and applied haphazard to
God, for whom they are entirely inadequate. But at least
these expressions teach us, that out of mere emptiness noth-
ing can come; that the world cannot arise out of something
which is lower and poorer than itself. Here in the world we
find in a certain measure, love, wisdom, excellence, power.
These things cannot spring from a source which is so poor
that it contains nothing but “isness.” The less can arise out
of the greater, but not the greater out of the less. We may
contrast Eleaticism not only with Christianity, but even
with popular modern agnosticism. According to this, the
Absolute is unknowable. But what the agnostic means is
that human reason is inadequate to grasp the greatness of
the ultimate being. But the Eleatic principle is, not that
in saying “God is Love, Power, Wisdom,” we are saying
too little about God, and that our ideas are inadequate to
express the fullness of His being, but on the contrary, that
they express too high an idea for God, of whom nothing can
be said except “He is,” because there is absolutely nothing
more to say. This conception of God is the conception of
an absolutely empty being.Monism, I said, is a necessary idea in philosophy. The Ab-
solute must be one. But an utterly abstract monism is
impossible. If the Absolute is simply one, wholly excludent
of all process and multiplicity, out of such an abstraction
the process and multiplicity of the {71} world cannot issue.
The Absolute is not simply one, or simply many. It must
be a many in one, as correctly set forth in the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity. Religion moves from an abstract
polytheism (God is many) to an abstract monotheism (God
is one; Judaism, Hinduism and Islam). But it does not stop
there. It rightly passes on to a concrete monotheism (God
is many in one; Christianity). There are two popular mis-
conceptions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. The first
mistake is that of popular rationalism, the second is that
of popular theology. Popular rationalism asserts that the
doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason. Popular the-
ology asserts that it is a mystery which transcends reason.
But the truth is that it neither contradicts nor transcends
reason. On the contrary, it is in itself the highest mani-
festation of reason. What is really a mystery, what really
contradicts reason, is to suppose that God, the Absolute,
is simply one without any multiplicity. This contradiction
results in the fatal dualism which broke out in Eleaticism,
and has broken out in every other system of thought, such