THE BEING OF GOD. 93 
were so lately held by men of light and leading; and against the 
philosophical teachings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, in particular, 
there appears to be an uprising among eminent men. In so far 
as this philosopher’s teaching is agnostic, we may be thankful 
for the frequent protests that one now hears. His evolutionary 
teachings are less opposed, and the number of those who accept 
his description of the processes by which inorganic and organic 
existence is carried on is much greater than of those who accept 
his whole scheme of philosophy, into which metaphysics enters so 
largely. His doctrine of the Persistence of Force, as laid down 
by him, is much questioned, and yet to his scheme, as a whole, it. 
is essential, as also is the other principle which he lays down— 
that mind is a series of states of consciousness, which, again, is 
largely denied. 
But his doctrine that there 7s a first cause, and yet that this is 
unknowable (not merely at present unknown), is the stumbling- 
block against which many a would-be follower of Mr. Spencer has 
stumbled. It has often been pointed out whata strange assumption 
it is for Mr. Spencer to make that ;—God is unknowable, when he 
is prepared to predicate so many profound attributes—such as that 
the First Cause possesses causal energy, is eternal, is infinite, is 
inscrutable. The Rev. Jas. Iverach says, “when we gather 
together into one thought all that Mr. Spencer affirms regarding 
the ‘unknowable,’ we find that it is an omnipresent power, that 
it is incomprehensible, and that it is the proper object of religious 
reverence, and that we are ever in its presence and from it all 
things proceed. Truly we must come to the conclusion that the 
word ‘ unknowable ’ is used only in a Spencerian sense.” 
I submit that for every branch of science there is an ultimate 
beyond which investigation seems unable to go, such as the 
organism for biology—the atom for chemistry—the ether for 
physics, and that every special scientist will acknowledge in his 
own department a remainder, often a very large one, of mystery. 
No theologian or metaphysician professes to deny that an immense 
remainder of mystery belongs also to his “‘ ultimate ” —which is a 
personal God. He may, however, just as well object to any 
teacher, however great, telling him his ‘‘ultimate”’ is “ unknowable,” 
as the chemist if he be told that his atom, or the physicist that his 
ether is unknowable. We know God in measure and expect to 
know Him better even in this life. Mr. Iverach again asks: 
