and, it is not part of the phenomenal sequence, it cannot stand to
phenomena in a genuine casual relation. It is, however, only fair to
point out that between the Unknowable and the evolutionary philosophy of
Spencer the only connection between them is that they are both in the
same work. In all probability it is an unconscious survival of
Spencer's earlier theism, which was active at the time the Synthetic
Philosophy was originally planned, but which became more and more
attenuated as Spencer grew older, and disappears entirely from the more
important volumes of the series. And but for the help it has been
supposed to give the belief in god, the "Unknowable" would only have
ranked as a harmless speculation of no value to anyone or to anything.
This is substantially admitted in a postscript to the 1899 edition of
"First Principles." At the conclusion of the section entitled "The
Unknowable," he says:--

The reader is not called on to judge respecting any of the
arguments or conclusions contained in the foregoing five chapters
and in the above paragraphs. The subjects on which we are about to
enter are independent of the subjects thus far discussed; and he
may reject any or all of that which has gone before while leaving
himself free to accept any or all of that which is now to come.

In other words, the "Unknowable" is a pure abstraction, having no
organic connection with the Synthetic Philosophy, or indeed with any
philosophy of value. Mr. Spencer's warning to his readers seems to quite
justify Mr. Bradley's rather caustic comment, "I do not wish to be
irreverent, but Mr. Spencer's attitude towards his Unknowable strikes me
as a pleasantry, the point of which lies in its unconsciousness. It
seems a proposal to take something for God simply and solely because we
do not know what the devil it can be." (Note to p. 128 of _Appearance
and Reality_.)

The curious thing is that Mr. Spencer really offers his readers two
theories of the nature of religion. One is contained in his "Principles
of Sociology," and so far as it traces all religious ideas to the
delusions and illusions of the primitive savage is substantially that
held by all modern anthropologists. The other is contained in his "First
Principles," and the two theories, like parallel lines, never meet.
Though born in the same brain they are quite distinct, and even
contradictory.

The substance of this second theory may be summar