194 KEY. H. .T. CLARKE. 



thence from that to star-dust, aud from the star-dust to the unknowable. 

 If they would only write one word in place of the unknowable — the word 

 God — we could comprehend everything. It seems to me that, if you put the 

 two in comparison — the theory that gives us the existence of a God and the 

 theory which traces everything to the unknowable, — you must admit that 

 there is more real intelligence, logic, and accurate thinking on the part of 

 those who believe with us in the existence of God, than on the part of the 

 agnostic who speaks of the unknowable. 



The Author. — It will have been perceived that I have assumed in 

 this paper that the great German philosopher, Kant, was, to all practical 

 intents and purposes, the scientific founder of agnosticism. His views, in so 

 far as they seemed to give any support to agnosticism, were adopted by Sir 

 Wm. Hamilton, and more fully and clearly and popularly expounded by 

 him. Of course there were also scientific persons who fully believed 

 in the existence of God, and accepted the revelation which has been given 

 to us in the Scriptures. I have thought it necessary to confine myself 

 chiefly in this paper to what I may call the Kantian objection to the scien- 

 tific recognition of the existence and attributes of the Eternal Being. It 

 seemed to me to be advisable, at any rate, to clear the ground for the various 

 other considerations which present themselves as soon as we have got rid of 

 what may be called the metaphysical perplexity. Now, there is one point 

 on which theists and agnostics are agreed, and it is this — that our intellect 

 can have no immediate perception of real existence, but simply of properties 

 or attributes ; yet, in perceiving these properties or attributes, we conceive 

 ourselves at liberty to recognise intellectually and scientifically the existence 

 which they seem to presuppose. No one can have any immediate perception 

 of that mysterious sympathy, or influence, or power, which causes atoms, 

 unless they be hindered, to approach each other. But we do recognise that 

 there is some such sympathy, or influence, or power at work, and we find 

 that we are able to determine the laws under which it works. Theists believe 

 they can in like manner, not only with scientific propriety recognise the ex- 

 istence of the Eternal Being, but also determine, in so far as they believe 

 that a revelation has been made to them, and has been rendered evident 

 to them, by the relations in which human beings stand to one another — 

 determine, I say. His attributes ; and just as we are able from the laws 

 of gravity to make certain calculations of the results which will be ful- 

 filled in certain cases, so are we able to make calculations and to predict 

 how the Almighty will operate under certain conditions. But here the 

 agnostics meet us with what they conceive to be an insuperable objection to 

 any intellectual determination of those laws, or recognition of those attri- 

 butes. They say the Eternal Something, or whatever it is — that which 

 underlies all phenomena— is absolutely inconceivable, for if you attempt to 

 represent it to your mind, and if you endeavour to form anything like an 

 intellectual conception of what it is you are speaking of, or to reason about 

 it, you are unscientific, — you fall into contradictions, and are obliged to use 



