24 



appears to be quite universal, namely, that all nature furnishes us with 

 abundant fields of investigation, that the amount of knowledge to be 

 obtained is practically unlimited, but that in every direction we perceive 

 if we go far enough the existence of an absolutely impassable barrier ; 

 we become aware that beyond the vast fields of the knowable and the 

 known there is an infinite region of the unknown and unknowable, v/hich 

 the human intellect cannot penetrate, strive and struggle as it may. 



This consideration leads to the obvious remark, that it can be no 

 objection to any science that it runs into mystery, or involves the 

 unknown or the inconceivable. If this be the case, as undoubtedly it 

 is, with physical science, which beyond all others deals with the seen, 

 the palpable, the sensible, d fortiori it is likely to be the case with other 

 sciences, which deal more especially with the unseen and the spiritual. 

 But the analogy of the physical sciences may teach us, that, while there 

 are confessed limits to the investigations of the human mind, there are 

 still almost infinite fields of inquiry, which are quite free and open to all 

 comers, and in which admirable discoveries have already been made. 

 To be more definite as to the point at which I am aiming, I would say 

 that there may be a true knowledge of God, a genuine Science of 

 Theology, in which there may be abundance of room for the expatiation 

 of all thoughtful earnest minds ; and yet the science may begin in 

 mystery as human science ends in it ; and it may be as wrong to put 

 down theology by the objection that God cannot be known, as it would 

 be to try to hamper physical science by the objection that the nature of 

 Matter is inconceivable. Some would have us substitute for the know- 

 ledge of God, in other words, for divine science, what they call 

 Agnosticism : the Altar at Athens is supposed after all to have had more 

 wisdom in its inscription than St. Paul supposed : but the fallacy of the 

 proposed substitution is seen, when we consider how easy it is, nay, how 

 necessary it is, for all thinking persons to grant that in a certain sense 

 God must be unknowable, and how foolish it is to regard this admission 

 as at all equivalent to this other assertion, that nothing can be known 

 about God. Once more I take the analogy of Physical Science ; and I 

 say that Matter is unknowable ; but I ask whether this admission proves 



