129 
as the child has of its mother. We learn from the Bible that men are 
brought by creation into the lower position in regard to God resembling the 
relation between the infant and its mother, very close to God, but knowing 
very little of Him. Then by the mysterious discipline of Providence, we 
may be said to be, as it were, weaned from this lower position. What then 
happens ? In the place of that merely material knowledge which the child 
has at first, it comes as it begins to grow and to acquire knowledge, to know 
its mother’s mind, and heart, and will, and it seems to me that in the process 
of His revelation of Himself we obtain the same kind of knowledge of God. 
It is with the race as it is with the individual, — through the revelation of God 
in Jesus Christ, that we come to know more and more of Him. But the point 
which I am now mainly insisting upon is this, that, if the relation between 
us and God be of the kind I have been describing, our knowledge of Him, 
whether much or little, must be in its nature so infinitely complex and 
mysterious a relation, that it would be impossible for any being less than 
God to understand how the knowledge comes about and how the relation 
exists. To knoiv is one thing, to know how we know is quite another. 
With regard to Mr. Spencer, although I have not read much of his writings, 
and therefore it is not right for me to be too sure in my criticism or 
praise of his philosophy, I think the last speaker was greatly in the right 
when he said we ought not altogether to condemn him. His philosophy 
is of two kinds — the materialistic philosophy of “atoms” and “force,” 
which, we hold, are totally insufficient to account for the production of 
what we see around us, and then, this agnostic philosophy by which he 
teaches that we do not know anything about God. Is it not possible that 
one element in the prevalent Agnosticism of the day is a genuine humility 
and reverence for the mystery which surrounds us on all sides? Such 
humility and reverence are “ not far from the kingdom of God,” but they 
need to be quickened by faith to bring men into it. The better Agnosticism 
may be likened to a child yet unborn, — it has “come to the birth, but there 
is not strength to bring forth,” — but, should the soul believe in Jesus 
Christ, the Bevealer of that Being Whom it yearns to know, it would be born 
into the spiritual world. There humility and reverence are indispensable 
both to life and to knowledge, and the once agnostic would find that the 
things which the Eternal Wisdom has “hid from the wise and prudent ” are 
“ revealed unto babes.” (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. W. Griffith. — It is a great gain to know from Herbert Spencer that 
he thinks the First Cause is unthinkable. It is on account of the ill con- 
sequences which arise from his writings that it is necessary to consider 
somewhat more fully his claims as a new teacher. I quite agree with 
Prebendary Row, that we are much indebted to Mr. Lias for his able 
statement of the whole question ; but, while I agree with him so far, I must 
differ from the view he takes of metaphysics. The learned Prebendary 
tells us that in metaphysics we are in a mere cloudland. If this be so, 
we are not likely to receive any great amount of light from that region ; 
but, on the other hand, is not logic itself a part of metaphysics ? Are 
