556 Edward Livingston Youmans. 



(A. D. 200) says of God, " We know not what he is, but only 

 what he is not." Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350) affirms, 

 " To know God is beyond man's power." St. Augustine 

 (A. D. 400) observes, " Rare is the mind that in speaking of 

 God knows what it means." John of Damascus (A. D. 800) 

 declares, "What is the substance of God, or how he exists 

 in all things, we are agnostics, and cannot say a word." 

 Duns Scotus (A. D. 1300) remarks: "Is God accessible to 

 our reason ? I hold that he is not." This tendency to re- 

 move the Divine nature beyond the grasp of reason, and 

 to hold that " a God understood is no God at all," has 

 grown in strength in modern times, and reached its full 

 expression in the theological philosophy of Hamilton and 

 Mansell, which landed inquiry upon this subject in blank 

 negation. Finding that the " Infinite and Eternal Spirit " 

 transcended and baffled all reason, they assumed that rea- 

 son brings us to an infinite nothing, so that we have no 

 alternative but to give up the idea of an Infinite Power, 

 or fall back upon faith. Mr. Spencer strenuously resisted 

 this conclusion. He maintained that the most inexorable 

 logic brings us not to an Infinite Nothing, but to an Infi- 

 nite Something; and, although this " Eternal Spirit " tran- 

 scends the reach of reason, and is " past finding out," yet 

 that its existence is the profoundest of all verities. Where 

 the case broke down in the hands of the theological ana- 

 lysts, he insists that it is demonstrably the strongest. 

 Whether he proves his case is not here the question ; we 

 only declare that such is his position, which is in dead an- 

 tagonism to atheism. But it is proper to say that many of 

 his able opponents acknowledge that Mr. Spencer has con- 

 tributed new and powerful arguments for the existence of 

 an " Infinite and Eternal Spirit." In the presence of these 

 facts, well known to all who care to know, what shall we 

 say of the veracity, the honour, or even the decency of 

 those who flippantly reiterate this groundless charge ? 



