273 
when we learn that, in spite of the exalted attributes ascribed 
to the “ Unconscious Spirit/’ yet we can form absolutely no 
positive conception— hence no approximate, however imperfect, 
conception — of its internal state, or, in other words, of that 
which for it takes the place of human consciousness. Only, 
says our author (as if to tantalize us by taking back, just as 
we were about to receive it, all that was offered in the term 
<( supra-conscious”), it is absolutely opposed to the conscious 
mental processes of the human mind. If these things be so, to 
what end was the long induction ? was it necessary to heap up 
premise on premise of facts experimentally observable, to prove 
that which is not only not observable, but avowedly incon- 
ceivable ? What sort of an induction is that which, instead of 
advancing from the known to the knowledge of the previously 
unknown, proceeds to the affirmation of that which is not only 
unknowable, but is also in nature absolutely opposed to the 
known ; the conclusion being thus not only unlike, but abso- 
lutely opposed in kind, to the premises? Nay, in spite of all 
the floundering logical ineptitude of our author, as here dis- 
closed, does not his case show that facts may prove themselves 
stronger than any preconceived conclusion and force the 
reasoner to bear witness to the truth ? For the “ Supra-con- 
scious,” to which Hartmann, notwithstanding his assertion of its 
unknowableness, ascribes such exalted attributes, is indeed that 
which man and nature not disclose, but to which they point. 
For the Christian theist may well be content to employ the 
above term to denote the internal state of that Divine Spirit, 
“ whose thoughts are not as our thoughts.” But he will re- 
member that man is made in the image of God, and hence that 
the mind of man is, after all, an image however faint of the 
Divine mind. In the scale of animal life there are surely 
different degrees of “ mind,” the spirit of man far transcending 
all the rest. Yet all are akin, the lowest, which is most com- 
pletely dependent on sense, in some sort imaging, however 
weakly, and pointing to the highest in the scale, the mind of 
man, which is least dependent on sense. So the spirit of man 
points to the Divine Spirit, which, however, it can no more 
completely comprehend, than can the lowest of animals the 
human mind. God and His creation are not unrelated, separate 
from and opposed to each other. They are akin. Were this 
not so, no argument from the latter, whether director indirect, 
positive or negative, to the former would be possible. Induc- 
tion, as before affirmed, is only possible, when the unknown, 
which is to be learned, is in some sense of a piece with the 
known. 
