successive stages of abstraction, we divest the conception of Being of
attribute and relation we reach the conception of that which cannot be,
i.e. a logical contradiction, or the logical correlative of Being which
is Nothing. (All this is well expressed in Caird's _Evolution of
Religion_.) The failure to perceive this fact constitutes a ground
fallacy in my _Candid Examination of Theism_, where I represent Being as
being a sufficient explanation of the Order of Nature or the law of
Causation.'

[24] This promise is only partially fulfilled in the penultimate
paragraph of the essay.--ED.

[25] _Essays_, vol. iii. p. 246 et seq. The whole passage ought to be
consulted, being too long to quote here.

[26] In an essay on Prof. Flint's _Theism_, appended to the _Candid
Examination_.

[27] _A Candid Examination of Theism_, pp. 171-2.

[28] [I have, as Editor, resisted a temptation to intervene in the above
argument. But I think I may intervene on a matter of fact, and point out
that 'according to the theological theory of things,' i.e. according to
the Trinitarian doctrine, God's Nature consists in what is strictly
'analogous to social relations,' and He not merely exhibits in His
creation, but Himself _is_ Love. See, on the subject, especially, R.H.
Hutton's essay on the Incarnation, in his _Theological Essays_
(Macmillan).--ED.]

[29] _Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution_, pp. 76-7.