74 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and the grave meet in one mystery. It is the putting on and the 

 putting off of consciousness ; all that lies between we call life finite, 

 limited life. 



Now, it seems plain that a mind so restricted by the senses can 

 never form a just conception of the infinite. How utterly impossible 

 it is for us to grasp the idea of endless space or endless time ! To 

 suppose there is an end to space is to suppose something beyond, and 

 this must be space. To suppose there was a moment when time 

 began is to suppose there was a moment before it began, and this 

 must have been time also. Let us conceive God to be the highest 

 possible ideal of the Infinite ; let us assume that he had no beginning, 

 and that he fills with his presence all space. But we cannot con- 

 ceive of a universal, all-pervading God without all-pervading space ; 

 and, consequently, if God had no beginning, neither had space, and if 

 space had no beginning, neither had time. Then, as a sequence, God 

 did not create time or space, for they were prerequisites to his own 

 existence. Hence our highest conceptions of God condition him of 

 necessity. 



Now, it may be asked, "Does this line of reasoning prove there is 

 no God?" Not at all. It simply proves that the finite mind is utterly 

 impotent to apprehend God. It proves that we do not and cannot 

 comprehend primary causation ; that our perceptive faculties are so 

 limited by the very nature of their constitution that they cannot ap- 

 prehend the primary nature of the simplest natural law; and if we can- 

 not comprehend the nature of the force called gravity, or heat as a 

 mode of motion, except as physical facts, how can we have any rational 

 conception of any of those matchless qualities of mind that produced 

 these laws ? If the rude savage, after examining for the first time a 

 complicated piece of machinery, can form no just conception of the 

 forces that impel it, or even of the purpose it serves, how much less 

 can he understand the peculiar qualities of mind that invented and 

 produced it ! If, by dint of deepest research, we cannot analyze the 

 subtile law that connects the molecular movement of the brain with 

 thought, how can we analyze the thoughts of an Infinite mind of which 

 this law was but a thought? Is it not plain that, in attempting this, 

 we attempt the impossible ? 



Let us give a simple illustration to show how utterly incompetent 

 is the finite mind to grasp the idea, of creation we mean absolute 

 creation. It must be conceded that matter has either had an eternal 



existence (whatever that may mean), or it has been called into being 



created by a Creator. But it may net have occurred to every one 

 that to the finite rational mind the latter s idea is as incomprehensible 

 as the former, for we cannot conceive of the creation of something out 

 of nothing. " From nothing, nothing can come." The science of 

 geometry is based upon axioms not more self-evident. So far as the 

 finite mind can reason, it is as impossible for God to create something 



