Ancient

and modern theologians, in east and west alike, have virtually taken refuge in Agnosticism, in as much as they have confe ed themselves unable to describe, or to prove the existence of the deity whom they fancifully postulated, and whom therefore they call “ Spiritual, Invisible, Incomprehensible, and Unknown "adding that none may pry into his nature or e ence, his where or wherefore, All priests, ancient and modern, like the “medicine men” of wild tribes, shut the doors of the sanctum, against the inquisitive. But the Agnostik is not inquisitive: he is satisfied that enquiries about spirits, or the supernatural, are vain, and are vexatious waste of time. The ordinary busy man of the world turns away, believing that there is not any god in the shrine, or else that his guardian thinks him unpresentable in the full light of day, and is unable to stand criticism, and cro -examination, such as these times demand, No Agnostik can accept the “ unknown,” or the “ unknowable,” not even if Mr Herbert Spencer defined Him (or It) as intelligent, and moral—which the wise philosopher does not of course do, We must know all about a subject, or object, and also all the potentialities of man—now or in the future—before we can say that anything is “unknowable.” The term (the Unknown) is indeed only permi ible for the poet. 74