THE BEING OF GOD. 89 
Professor Sidgwick (the latter Darwin’s opponent) confirm my 
opinion. The former, in an essay of December 26th, 1859, says 
Archdeacon Sinciarr.—I think I may save a little trouble if I 
say that I am not in the least a supporter of either Darwin or 
Spencer. I say on page 4 of my paper, “yet the consistent 
believer in God will always occupy an impregnable position in 
maintaining that the entire series, in each and every one of its 
incidents, is an immediate manifestation of His creative action.”’ 
Professor OrcHarpv.—We are all, I am sure, glad to have the 
author’s disavowal so frankly and sincerely made to us. I am 
sure also, we shall all concur in thanking the author very much 
for bringing before us so interesting a paper, so poetical and so 
eloquent. 
There are one or two points in the paper in which I cannot 
altogether concur. For instance, the author appears to say that 
most of what is really meant by the spectral bugbear of 
Agnosticism is that belief is not intended to be scientific 
knowledge. He appears to connect that with the fact that man 
cannot find out the Almighty to perfection. No one in his senses, 
I suppose, would assert that by searching any one could find out 
God to perfection, certainly no Christian would do so. But by 
Agnosticism, as taught by Herbert Spencer, and others, something 
very different indeed to this is meant. It is meant that it is 
impossible, by any process whatever, to know God. That is what 
Herbert Spencer avers, and that is, undoubtedly, the essential 
idea of Agnosticism, that God is, from His very nature and 
character, absolutely unknowable. 
The author also quotes, apparently with approbation, some 
words by Professor Diman, “Creation by fabrication (or actual 
direct handiwork) seems less a matter for admiration than 
creation by evolution; a man can bring a machine together; he 
cannot make a machine that develops itself.” I have met with a 
variety of statements in this controversy, but I must say that this 
is one of the most unfair that I have met with. Who denies that 
man cannot make a machine that develops itself—or who denies 
that God does make such machines? Who, knowing anything of 
biology, denies that the human body, or dog or toad, can develop 
itself? But what has that to do with evolution? It is absolutely 
beside the question. We all know that God makes machines to 
develop themselves; but believing that does not make me an 
