294 
God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal 
power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” 
But this our revelation tells us also that this present 
world was made subject to vanity ; that it groaneth and 
travaileth in pain together, until the time of restoration of all 
things from the evil wrought by the entrance of sin. 
There is, then, no common ground on which we may stand, ' 
and common terms are wanting. Not only so; we profess 
that it is by faith that we understand that the worlds were 
framed by the word of God ; but agnosticism is the avowal of 
absence of faith ; that is, of the power to apprehend the 
things that we believe. 
We look, then, on the Kosmos, or, if you will, on Nature, 
with different eyes ; and before we can settle the question. 
Which is colour-blind ? ” must decide what is to be done in 
reference to this other revelation of God, to which we give in 
our adhesion and they not. 
But let it first be conceded that there can be no possible 
compromise. Either the believer is right or the agnostic is 
right. The vast number, who hover in a kind of cloudland 
between the two, are self-condemned by their own want of 
courage and of adhesion to the logical results of their 
opinions. 
The true agnostic agrees with St. Paul, in saying that the 
natural man understandeth not the things of the spirit of God, 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually 
discerned. Mr. Keynolds says well : — 
“ The truths are objective ; true before they are believed, and true, even 
after faith in them is lost. They are subjective also ; their influence being 
the result of immediate operation by the Holy Ghost on the human heart 
and conscience. This must be remembered in dealing with opponents of 
Scripture : we shall not prevail with them unless we win our way into the 
conviction of their intellect, and into the atiection of their will ” (page 492). 
Let us consider a little more closely the terms nature, 
and supernatural.'’^ How are they to be distinguished ? 
Listen to the Duke of Argyll (the italics are mine) : — 
“ The supernatural : What is it ? What do we mean by it ? How do 
we define it ? M. Guizot tells us that belief in it is the special difficulty of 
our time ; that denial of it is the form taken by all modern assaults on 
Christian faith ; and, again, that acceptance of it lies at the root, not only 
of Christianity, but of all positive religion whatever. These questions, then, 
concerning the supernatural, are questions of first importance. Yet we find 
them seldom distinctly put, and still more seldom distinctly answered. This 
is a capital error in dealing with any question of philosophy. Half the per- 
