energizing in its creation and expressing in its constitution and in the laws of its ongoing, the archetypal thought of his eternal love and wisdom.

If it is necessary to the reality of human knowledge that all knowledge be demonstrated, or that the mind knowing must have a power above itself to criticise its own highest powers and judge of their trustworthiness, or that it must know reality out of all relation to its faculties and compare with it what it knows by its faculties, or that knowledge must have no relation to a mind, then certainly knowledge is impossible to man. But each of these demands involves absurdity and self-contradiction.

We see then that man has knowledge. His knowledge begins in experience as self-evident, primitive knowledge, it proceeds to the knowledge of realities beyond experience by processes of thought under the regulation of self-evident and universal principles, and it issues in the knowledge of God and of the universe in the unity of a rational, scientific system through its relations to God. And, theism, when attained, throws its light back on human knowledge, and by disclosing God the absolute Reason, man in his image, and the universe as the expression of his thought, enables us to look beyond the fact that the reality of knowledge is an ultimate datum of consciousness and see the eternal ground of its being so.

II. Agnosticism belies the constitution and consciousness of man, debars itself from the possibility of argument in its own support, and contradicts and nullifies itself.

Because it denies knowledge on the ground that human intelligence is untrustworthy, it denies the possibility of knowledge and thus equally denies all knowledge. If man knows anything whatever, he is proved capable of knowing, and agnosticism is totally false. I have already explained why agnostic objections are entertained against theology more commonly than against knowledge in other spheres; but logically and rationally, theology is no more invalidated by these objections than astronomy or chemistry, or than a man's knowledge of the road home, or that he was once born, or that the beast he rides is a horse and not a sheep. As equally denying all knowledge, agnosticism is equally powerless against all.

It contradicts the fundamental and universal consciousness of man, which persists as the consciousness of knowing, and controls the entire action of mankind not excepting those who propound agnostic spéculations. If one should carry out in action the doctrine of agnosticism, it would prove him insane.

Agnosticism precludes the possibility of argument or evidence in its support. Argument and evidence presuppose knowledge. It is impos

sible to appeal to knowledge in proof that knowledge is impossible, or to reason to prove that reason is irrational and untrustworthy

The affirmation of agnosticism is self-contradictory; it is the affirmation of knowledge and implies its reality. Agnosticism is a theory of knowledge. Hegel says: "No one is aware that anything is a limit or defect until at the same time he is above and beyond it."* An ox cannot know that it is ignorant of the multiplication table and incompetent to learn it. If man were incompetent to know he would be equally unconscious of his deficiency. If I say that my beliefs are delusive and not knowledge, I assume that I know what true knowledge is, and by comparing my own beliefs with it I know that they are illusive. If I say that my intellectual faculties are untrustworthy, I assume that I am conscious of a higher faculty by which I know the norm or standard of truth and judge my other faculties untrustworthy. Hegel's maxim is applicable also to partial agnosticism. If I affirm that I have knowledge only of phenomena, not of the true reality which exists as a "thing in itself" out of all relation to my faculties, I assume a knowledge of the "thing in itself" and of phenomena as distinguished from it. When Mr. Tyndall says he has no faculty and no rudiment of a faculty by which he can know God, he already reveals the faculty of knowing him. If the existence of an object involves no contradiction and I can form a conception of it, then I am competent to know it if evidence of its existence comes within the range of my experience and my thought. When Hamilton and Mansel affirm that we have only a negative knowledge of the Absolute (which is no knowledge), and Spencer affirms that the Absolute exists but is the unknowable, they are already looking over the limits of the finite and know the Absolute as existent being. If they had no power to know the Absolute, they would be as unconscious of their ignorance as an ox is of its ignorance of geometry. Accordingly Hamilton teaches that we cannot know the Absolute, yet that by an entirely unexplained act of faith we believe in its existence and accept it as the supreme object of worship, love and obedience. When Mr. Spencer speaks of "the unknowable," he unwittingly reveals knowledge of it by describing it as "the Absolute," as "Cause, Power, or Force of which every phenomenon is a manifestation," as "some Power by which we are acted on," as "omnipresent" and "persistent."† So others, who deny that man can know God, refer to sin and suffering in the universe as incompatible with his existence and thus assume knowledge of God and of how he would have constituted and governed the universe, if he had existed.

* Encyklopädie, Vol. I. p. 121.

† First Principles; pp. 96, 98, 99, 258.

The affirmation of agnosticism is also in itself an affirmation that man has knowledge; he knows that he cannot know anything. If agnosticism were proved true, at the same moment it would be proved false, for it would be proved that we know the truth of agnosticism. Augustine has exemplified this contradiction in a passage which almost dizzies the reader by its rapid turns. "I am most certain that I am and I know this and delight in it. In respect to these truths I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians who say: "What if you are deceived?' If I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this token I am. And since I am, if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? for it is certain that I am, if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in the knowledge that I am. Consequently neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know."*

If the Agnostic says that he does not dogmatically deny the existence or reality of everything or anything, but only affirms his ignorance, he at least avows knowledge of his own ignorance and of himself as ignorant. Ignorance itself is knowledge of something by a person knowing, with the additional knowledge that the knowledge of that something is limited.

If he says that he does not affirm even his own ignorance, but that his mind is in a state of continuous skepticism, doubting, questioning, in a continuous equipoise, neither believing nor disbelieving, still he affirms his knowledge of his own skepticism; also, some knowledge is prerequisite to the possibility of skepticism, questioning or doubt. And such an equipoise is a state of unstable equilibrium, the existence of which in the conscious experience of man even on a single question is comparatively rare. We may safely say no man was ever permanently conscious of such an equipoise on all objects of thought.

Agnosticism is therefore self-contradictory and self-annulling. It is not a legitimate topic for argument, and has no claim on the consideration of any rational being. It continues in debate only because skepticism thrusts it on us in its objections. Otherwise its discussion is no more pertinent as preliminary to theology than to astronomy.

III. Any theory of knowledge, any system, or any proposition, which involves agnosticism, is thereby proved false and has no claim to further consideration.

There is little danger that agnosticism will find acceptance when distinctly avowed as such. It is not likely to infect men's minds except as it inoculates with its virus some theory ostensibly affirming

* Civitas Dei, Book xi. 26.

the reality of knowledge, but essentially involving universal agnosticism and supported by objections which, if sustained, equally invalidate all knowledge. It is a sort of intellectual trichiniasis which can be communicated to man only through the "stye of Epicurus" or some other. It must hide itself in some theory which in words affirms the reality of knowledge, in order to conceal the unreason which is its essence and to disguise the deadliness of the negation which it injects.

But however disguised, every theory, system or proposition, which essentially involves agnosticism, is demonstrated to be false so soon as the agnosticism essentially involved in it is exposed.

For example, while reality may exist unknowable by man in his present condition and development, we positively know that no reality can exist out of all relation to the human faculties in the sense that it is contradictory to the necessary and universal principles which are regulative of all human thinking, nor in the sense that it is the only reality and that all which man knows is phenomenal and not real. For this involves agnosticism.

Another example is found in the phenomenalism of this day. Prof. Clifford says, "If we were to travel forward as we have travelled backward in time and consider things as falling together, we should come to a central all, in one piece, which would send out waves of heat through a perfectly empty ether and gradually cool down. As this mass got cool it would be deprived of all life and motion. But this conclusion, like the one we discussed about the beginning of the world, is one which we have no right whatever to rest on. It depends on the same assumption, that the laws of geometry and mechanics are exactly and absolutely true and that they will continue exactly and absolutely true forever and ever. Such an assumption we have no right whatever to make."* But if the mathematics on which astronomers rest their calculations is not the mathematics of the planets and the stars and if our geometry is not the geometry of all space, then our astronomy is good for nothing. By thus denying the universal truth of mathematical principles Prof. Clifford destroys the foundation of physical science, and by discrediting the principles of reason, discredits all human knowledge. And thus phenomenalism is proved false, because it necessarily terminates in agnosticism.

? 6. Knowledge and Fallibility.

One may be certain and yet afterwards find that he was mistaken; he may be sure that he has true knowledge of reality and afterwards find that it was only an erroneous belief. J. G. Fichte "developed, with most admirable rigor of demonstration, a scheme of idealism, the

* Lectures and Essays, Vol. i. p. 224.

purest, simplest, and most consistent which the history of philosophy exhibits. And so confident was he in the necessity of his proof, that on one occasion he was provoked to imprecate eternal damnation on his head, if he should ever swerve from any, even the least of the doctrines which he had so victoriously established. But even Fichte in the end confesses that natural belief is paramount to every logical proof, and that his own idealism he could not believe."* Hamilton was sure that Fichte had confessed himself mistaken; but he himself may only have believed an error; since others, perhaps better acquainted with Fichte's writings, insist that his later works are the consistent development of his earlier. Similar experience is common to all men. Every person has often believed to be true what others with equal assurance have believed to be false; has been certain that he had true knowledge of reality, and afterwards has found that it was only an erroneous belief.

It is objected that facts like these disprove the possibility of knowledge; that when one has found himself mistaken in his certainty, he can never be certain again. He will say, I have before assuredly believed that I had true knowledge of reality and have found myself mistaken. If I am equally certain now, how can I have confidence that I shall not again find myself mistaken? Therefore, the objector argues, even if a belief is true, it can never be known to be true; it cannot be discriminated from false belief. But belief which cannot be known to be true is not knowledge; it is uncertainty or doubt; and the objector concludes that therefore knowledge is impossible.

I. I reply that the objection, if valid, proves complete agnosticism. Therefore it is not entitled to the attention of rational beings and may be dismissed from further consideration.

It is, however, a favorite objection of skeptics against philosophy and theology. Like all agnostic objections it is urged as having a special significance against these, though of equal force against all knowledge. Mr. Lewes has written what he calls a History of Philosophy for the avowed purpose of proving from the mistakes, uncertainties and disagreements of philosophers that philosophy is impossible. The objection is specious and sometimes perplexes sincere inquirers. It is necessary, therefore, to delay a little in order to show that the co-existence of knowledge with conscious fallibility is entirely reasonable, and no necessary inconsistency exists between them.

II. The objection assumes as a fact what is contrary to the universal consciousness of man.

It is not a fact that the consciousness of having been mistaken precludes certainty. The man is at least certain that he was mistaken. *Hamilton in Reid's Works, p. 796.