317 
pletest sense, includes metaphysics ” as well as “ physics ” ; the psychologist’s 
reflective and introspective work, as well as the physicist’s observational and 
inductive work ; the problems of the ‘‘ ethical,” in addition to those of the 
“ material,” sphere of investigation. 
Faith postulates the supra^ (or super-) natural, as the starting-point of 
knowledge. “ In the beginning, God.” 
And study and experience conflrm the reasonableness of this postulate, 
For “ physical ” phenomena lead up to an acknowledged mystery, wherein 
force and motion have their hidden source. “ Laws of nature ” (so far as 
discoverable by man) still point to a region beyond {supra) and above 
{super) human observation. Mental analysis indicates the supremacy of 
will and intelligence over mere matter. Mftral emotions irresistibly suggest 
the ideas of a righteous supreme power, and of human responsibility and 
dependence. 
All these conclusions confirm both a union and an antithesis between the 
natural world {i.e., the Kosmos as man can know and deal with it) and the 
supi'a-natural {i.e,, the unknown regions beyond the reach of man’s “ natural ” 
observation). 
A belief in causa causans is unquestionably reasonable, and a belief in this 
“ cause” as personal and eternal can be shown, both by intuitive and logical 
considerations, to be well grounded. 
But does not Mr. Howard in his paper somewhat ignore the extent to 
which men’s reasoning and moral faculties may be employed in the investi- 
gation of the “ supernatural,” apart from Scriptural revelation ? May we 
not, should we not, do something besides commending the Bible to the 
acceptance of the “Agnostic” (§ IV.) ? May we not, e.g. (in order to prepare 
the way for that acceptance), argue in behalf of philosophic “dualism” 
versus (the now fashionable) “monism,” and show that the scientist who 
attempts by a “double aspect” theory (i.e., by the theory that all things 
may be looked upon “objectively ” and “ subjectively,” but that mind and 
matter are not essentially distinct) to evade the plain and insurmountable 
distinction between mind and matter, is unscientific ? 
Mr. Howard states that the fall of man has rendered men “sensual, 
carnal, and with all his powerful intellect incapable, till renewed, of com- 
munion with God” (end of § III.). 
To what extent can this incapability be predicated ? 
On the last page but one he says “ the mind of man was drawn out by 
the Creator in connexion with the study of his works ” (Gen. ii.). Does 
he mean us to infer that, after the fall, all such education of men’s mental 
faculties was rendered impossible ? 
I put these questions, not, of course, in opposition to Mr. Howard’s 
advocacy of the Biblical revelation being the most necessary and the most 
suitable for men, but in order to suggest that philosophical reasoning, 
honestly and candidly pursued, may in some cases, perhaps, prove a bridge 
over which the Agnostic may pass from his region of negation or hesitation 
as to the “ supernatural,” into that province of reasonable faith where the 
