66 ME, J. HASSELL 



wliicli, being "unthinkable/^ is tberefore "unknowable.'" 

 His line of argument is something like the following : — 



A self-existent universe implies a universe existing without 

 a beginning, but existence without a beginning i3 incon- 

 ceivable. 



2nd. — A self-created universe is not conceivable, because 

 before the universe existed, there must have been nothing, 

 and that nothing must have itself produced something, and 

 this is inconceivable. 



3rd. — A universe created by external agency is inconceiv- 

 able, because the human mind cannot link into one proposition 

 something and nothing. 



Thus, then, according to Mr. Spencer, the origin of the 

 universe is proved to reside in the region which our minds 

 cannot enter. It lies on the other side of the line which 

 limits the " knowable.'^ Well, suppose this to be so. What 

 then ? Are we to refuse to believe that the universe was 

 created by external agency, because we cannot form a just 

 conception of how such a thing can be ? vSee where such a 

 conclusion would lead us ! Mr. Ground, in his Spencer's 

 Structural Principles Examined, well says, concerning this : — 



" ' To conceive,' ' to know,' ' to comprehend,' is to stand in mental relation 

 to the thing comprehended. That thing comprehended is the objective fact, 

 and to comprehend it is to stand in mental or subjective relation to it. 

 Consequently, to conceive or comprehend the origin of the universe would 

 demand that the being who conceived that origin should stand in mental 

 relation to it. Now, the ' origin of the universe ' is that precise operation 

 Avhich took place when the primal origin 'nothing' passed into 'something.' 

 'Nothing' is one of the limits of the proposition, ' something' is the other. 

 But, as ' nothing' cannot be conceived by us, the only possible mode of our 

 standing in relation to the origin of the universe would be by ourselves 

 beholding that origin. In no other way could the concept come before us. 

 But before we could behold that origin we must ourselves be existent. 



" Now, by the hypothesis, we form no part of the originated universe, 

 because we are to be present at its origin. Clearly, therefore, we could be 

 existing and beholding at the origin only by being ourselves the originator. 

 That is to say, to conceive the origin of the universe is an operation possible 

 only to the Creator! One of the things 'unknowable' is thus shown to 

 reside in the realm where Deity only can enter. All that Mr. Spencer shows 

 is that man is not God, which is a truism needing no logic to prove." 



Much in the same way, Mr. Spencer argues as to the 

 nature of the universe, and the Person of Grod, which he 

 holds to be also " Unknowable." Stripped of its figures, and 

 reduced to a number of propositions, the reasoning of the 

 Agnostic is this : " Because I am not myself the Infinite and 

 the Absolute, I decline to believe in the existence of any 

 Infinite and Absolute Personality. Because I am not myself 

 the Supremo God, I decline to believe that there is any 



