258 
58. The idea of the unlimited, of infinity, or of eternity, we 
gain only by repetitions of the idea of that which is bounded, 
adding one term to another, until we are tired of the process. 
When the logicians tell us that the Infinite is unknowable, 
they cannot mean to say that it is unthinkable ; they admit 
the existence of such a conception. This is sufficient as a 
ground for belief, and, consequently, of responsibility. The 
universal consent of mankind proves that the idea of an omni- 
potent omnipresent God is a practicable thought, congruous 
to the mind. To affirm that He is only conceived of in 
symbol, does not affect the argument, for the mode of thought 
presupposes a possible subject. 
59. Having learnt that science has no complete explanation 
of its own, we may propose one which comes to us from 
another quarter. We transfer the case from the Laboratory 
to the Forum; we put in a document, bring forward our 
attesting witnesses, and require its contents to be read. 
Perhaps it may not only yield important facts per se, but take 
up the clue abandoned by science, and conduct us into the 
unknown. Why should inquiry and research, so laudable 
elsewhere, cease to be praiseworthy here ? Why may we not 
ask, of this other professing guide, the way, in the region so 
dark to philosophy ? Doing this, we adduce the words of an 
eloquent ancient scholar, St. Paul, who gives, as the result of 
his considerations, the following : — “ By faith we understand 
that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that 
things which are seen were not made of things which do 
appear.”* 
60. It may be urged, in opposition, that the limits referred 
to exist not in the things themselves but in the mind conceiving 
of them; that the latter do contain within themselves suffi- 
cient reason for their being. But though we admit that 
we do not know the real ultimate nature of substances, yet 
neither does the objector pretend to this knowledge, and 
therefore we are at least as much entitled to say that matter 
obeys laws as the objector is to say that matter is a law to 
itself. Surely we may say with Socrates, “ Should we not bo 
wiser in assenting to that other argument, which says, as we 
have often repeated, that there is in the universe a mighty 
infinite, and an adequate limit ” ? 
61. But it may be further objected, that the limits estab- 
lished lead us only into agnosticism. That although wo 
* Hebrews ii. 3. 
