CfH. III.] COSMIC THEISM 413 



in our opening discussion, But since such abstruse theorems 

 need to be taken one by one into the mind, and allowed one 

 after the other to dwell there for a while, in order to be duly 

 comprehended, it did not then seem desirable to encumber 

 the exposition with any reference to the third statement in 

 which these two are made to unite ; nor, indeed, would it 

 have been possible to illustrate adequately this third state- 

 ment until we had defined our position in relation to the 

 questions of phenomenality, of causation and deanthropo- 

 morphization, of the persistence of force, and of the evolution 

 of the phenomenal world. But now, having obtained definite 

 conclusions upon these points, we are at last enabled to 

 present the case as a whole. Having seen that in certain 

 senses the Deity and the Cosmos are alike inscrutable, let us 

 now see if there is any sense in which it may be legitimately 

 said that the Unknowable contained in our first theorem is 

 identical with the Unknowable contained in our second 

 theorem. 



Upon what grounds did we assert the unknowableness of 

 Deity ? We were driven to the conclusion that Deity is 

 unknowable, because that which exists independently of in- 

 telligence and out of relation to it, which presents neither 

 likeness, difference, nor relation, cannot be cognized. Now by 

 precisely the same process, we were driven to the conclusion 

 that the Cosmos is unknowable, only in so far as it is absolute. 

 It is only as existing independently of our intelligence and 

 out of relation to it, that we can predicate unknowableness 

 of the Cosmos. As manifested to our intelligence, the Cos- 

 mos is the world of phenomena, — the realm of the knowable. 

 We know stars and planets, we know the surface of our earth, 

 we know life and mind in their various manifestations, indi- 

 vidual and social But, as we have seen, this vast aggregate 

 of phenomena exists as such only in relation to our intelli- 

 gence. Its esse is percipi. To this extent we have gone with 

 Berkeley. But underlying this aggregate of phenomena, to 



