[50 cts. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY 
 
 AND AGNOSTICISM 
 
 A CONTROVERSY 
 
 ■yr C ■ >&•***% £ 
 
 Cons/sting of Papers by 
 
 HENRY WAGE, D. D., 
 
 PRO?. THOMAS H. HUXLEY, 
 
 THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, 
 
 W. H, MALLOCK, 
 
 MRS. HUMPHRY WARD. 
 
 New Yoek : D. Api leton aed Compaq 
 
 
('lass 
 
 
 
 Book 
 
 
 
 
 presenW liY 
 
 
 
 
 
CHRISTIANITY 
 AND AGNOSTICISM 
 
 A CONTROVERSY 
 
 CONSISTING OF PAPERS BY 
 
 *^H 
 
 *- 
 
 HENRY WACE, D. D., 3" 
 PROF. THOMAS H. HUXLEY, 
 
 THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, a 
 
 W. H. MALLOCK, ft 
 
 MRS. HUMPHRY WARD. 3r 
 
 »f. 
 
 ar 
 
 ir- 
 
 of 
 
 x- 
 
 th 
 
 er 
 
 ae 
 
 NEW YORK n- 
 
 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY he 
 
 1889 tic 
 
BL9.178 
 £4-5 
 
 Co joy 2. 
 
 The undisputed interest taken in the recent controversy between the Rev. 
 Dr. Henry Wace, Principal of King's College, London, and Prof. Huxley, 
 over the question of the true significance of agnosticism, and incidentally of 
 the limits of natural knowledge ; and the difficulty of getting at the complete 
 discussion when scattered through different publications, have induced tlie pub- 
 lishers to bring the articles together in a single volume. 
 
 The opening paper, which led directly to those that follow, was read at the 
 Church Congress in Manchester in 1888. The paper on " The Value of 
 Witness to the Miraculous," though not strictly apart of the controversy, was 
 published by Prof. Huxley while it was going on, and its direct bearing on 
 the question at issue is a sufficient reason for its insertion. Mr. Malld~l' i> * 
 paper on " Cowardly Agnosticism,'' 1 and also that of Mrs. Humphry W 
 to which Dr. Wace makes reply in 7ds second article, are included for the 
 valuable side-lights they throw upon the general subject under discussion. 
 
 AcxWA 
 
 V 
 
 
CONTEXTS. 
 
 Or 
 
 PAGE 
 
 : L— ON AGNOSTICISM. By Henry Wace, D. D., Prebendary of 
 
 St. Paul's Cathedral ; Principal of King's College, London . 5 
 (Bead at the Manchester Church Congress, 1888.) 
 II.— AGNOSTICISM. By Prof. Thomas H. Huxley ... 14 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," February, 1889.) 
 III.— AGNOSTICISM. A Reply to Prof. Huxley. By Henry Wace, 
 
 D. D 57 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.) 
 
 IY.— AGNOSTICISM. By W. C. Magee, D. D., Bishop of Peter- 
 
 borough 87 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.) 
 V.— AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. By Prof. Thomas H. 
 
 Huxley 91 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," April, 1889.) 
 ^.—CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. By Henry Wace, D.D. 130 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," May, 1889.) 
 \ i..— AN EXPLANATION TO. PROF. HUXLEY. By W. C. Ma- 
 
 gee, D. D., Bishop of Peterborough 166 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century? May, 1889.) 
 VIII.— THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. By 
 
 Prof. Thomas H. Huxley 168 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.) 
 IX.— AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. By Prof. Thomas H. 
 
 Huxley 194 
 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," June, 1889.) 
 X.— " COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM." A WORD WITH PROF. 
 
 HUXLEY. By W. H. Mallock 241 
 
 {From " The Fortnightly Review," April, 1889.) 
 XI.— THE NEW REFORMATION. By Mrs. Humphry Ward . 284 
 {From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.) 
 
I. 
 ON AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 A PAPER BEAD AT THE MANCHESTER CHURCH CONGRESS, 1888. 
 By HENRY WACE, D. D., 
 
 PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL ; PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. 
 
 What is agnosticism % In the new Oxford " Diction- 
 ary of the English Language," we are told that " an ag- 
 nostic is one who holds that the existence of anything be- 
 yond and behind natural phenomena is unknown, and (so 
 far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a 
 First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which 
 we know nothing." The same authority quotes a letter 
 from Mr. R. H. Hutton, stating that the word was sug- 
 gested in his hearing, at a party held in 1869, by Prof. 
 Huxley, who took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar 
 at Athens to the Unknown God. " Agnostic," it is fur- 
 ther said, in a passage quoted from the " Spectator " of 
 June 11, 1876, " was the name demanded by Prof. Hux- 
 ley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with 
 him in an unknown and unknowable God, or, in other 
 words, that the ultimate origin of all things must be some 
 cause unknown and unknowable." Again, the late hon- 
 ored bishop of this diocese is quoted as saying, in the 
 "Manchester Guardian" in 1880, that "the agnostic 
 
6 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put him on 
 one side." The designation was suggested, therefore, for 
 the purpose of avoiding a direct denial of beliefs respect- 
 ing God such as are asserted by our faith. It proceeds, 
 also, from a scientific source, and claims the scientific 
 merit, or habit, of reserving opinion respecting matters 
 not known or proved. 
 
 Now we are not here concerned with this doctrine as 
 a mere question of abstract philosophy respecting the 
 limits of our natural capacities. We have to consider it 
 in relation to the Church and to Christianity, and the 
 main consideration which it is the purpose of this paper 
 to suggest is that, in this relation, the adoption of the 
 term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and 
 that it involves a mere evasion. A Christian Catechism 
 says : " First, I ]earn to believe in God the Father, who 
 hath made me, and all the world ; secondly, in God the 
 Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind ; thirdly, 
 in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the 
 elect people of God." The agnostic says : " How do you 
 know all that % I consider I have no means of knowing 
 these things you assert respecting God. I do not know, 
 and can not know, that God is a Father, and that he has 
 a Son ; and I do not and can not know that such a Father 
 made me, or that such a Son redeemed me." But the 
 Christian did not speak of what he knew, but of what 
 he believed. The first word of a Christian is not "I 
 know," but " I believe." He professes, not a science, but 
 a faith ; and at baptism he accepts, not a theory, but a 
 creed. 
 
 Now it is true that in one common usage of the word, 
 belief is practically equivalent to opinion. A man may 
 say he believes in a scientific theory, meaning that he is 
 
ON AGNOSTICISM. 7 
 
 strongly of opinion that it is true ; or, in still looser lan- 
 guage, he may say he believes it is going to be a fine day. 
 I would observe, in passing, that even in this sense of the 
 word, a man who refused to act upon what he could not 
 know would be a very unpractical person. If you are 
 suffering from an obscure disease, you go to a doctor to 
 obtain, not his knowledge of your malady, but his opin- 
 ion ; and upon that opinion, in defiance of other opinions, 
 even an emperor may have to stake his life. Similarly, 
 from what is known of the proceedings in Parliament re- 
 specting the Manchester Ship-Canal, it may be presumed 
 that engineers were not unanimous as to the possibilities 
 and advantages of that undertaking ; but Manchester men 
 were content to act upon the best opinion, and to stake 
 fortunes on their belief in it. However, it may be suffi- 
 cient to have just alluded to the old and unanswered con- 
 tention of Bishop Butler that, even if Christian belief and 
 Christian duty were mere matters of probable opinion, a 
 man who said in regard to them, " I do not know, and 
 therefore I will not act," would be abandoning the first 
 principle of human energy. He might be a philosopher ; 
 but he would not be a man — not at least, I fancy, accord- 
 ing to the standard of Lancashire. 
 
 But there is another sense of the word " belief," which 
 is of far more importance for our present subject. There 
 is belief which is founded on the assurances of another 
 person, and upon our trust in him. This sort of belief is 
 not opinion, but faith ; and it is this which has been the 
 greatest force in creating religions, and through them in 
 molding civilizations. What made the Mohammedan 
 world ? Trust and faith in the declarations and assurances 
 of Mohammed. And what made the Christian world? 
 Trust and faith in the declarations and assurances of Jesus 
 
8 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Christ and his apostles. This is not mere believing about 
 things; it is believing a man and believing in a man. 
 Now, the point of importance for the present argument 
 is, that the chief articles of the Christian creed are directly 
 dependent on personal assurances and personal declara- 
 tions, and that our acceptance of them depends on per- 
 sonal trust. Why do we believe that Jesus Christ re- 
 deemed all mankind ? Because he said so. There is no 
 other ultimate ground for it. The matter is not one open 
 to the observation of our faculties; and as a matter of 
 science we are not in a position to know it. The case is 
 the same with his divine Sonship and the office of his 
 Spirit. He reveals himself by his words and acts; and 
 in revealing himself he reveals his Father, and the Spirit 
 who proceeds from both. His resurrection and his mira- 
 cles afford us, as St. Paul says, assurance of his divine 
 mission. But for our knowledge of his offices in relation 
 to mankind, and of his nature in relation to God, we rest 
 on his own words, confirmed and explained by those of 
 his apostles. Who can dream of knowing, as a matter of 
 science, that he is the Judge of quick and dead % But he 
 speaks himself, in the Sermon on the Mount, of that day 
 when men will plead before him, and when he will de- 
 cide their fate ; and Christians include in their creed a 
 belief in that statement respecting the unseen and future 
 world. 
 
 But if this be so, for a man to urge as an escape from 
 this article of belief that he has no means of a scientific 
 knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrele- 
 vant. His difference from Christians lies not in the fact 
 that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does 
 not believe the authority on which they are stated. He 
 may prefer to call himself an agnostic ; but his real name 
 
ON AGNOSTICISM, 9 
 
 is an older one — lie is an infidel ; that is to say, an unbe- 
 liever. The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant 
 significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, 
 and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have 
 to say plainly that he does not believe Jesus Christ. It 
 is, indeed, an awful thing to say. But even men who are 
 not conscious of all it involves shrink from the ungracious- 
 ness, if from nothing more, of treating the beliefs insepa- 
 rably associated with that sacred Person as an illusion. 
 This, however, is what is really meant by agnosticism ; 
 and the time seems to have come when it is necessary to 
 insist upon the fact. 
 
 Of course, there may be numberless attempts at re- 
 spectful excuses or evasions, and there is one in particular 
 which may require notice. It may be asked how far we 
 can rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord's teach- 
 ing on these subjects. Now it is unnecessary for the gen- 
 eral argument before us to enter on those questions re- 
 specting the authenticity of the Gospel narratives, which 
 ought to be regarded as settled by M. Kenan's practical 
 surrender of the adverse case. Apart from all disputed 
 points of criticism, no one practically doubts that our 
 Lord lived, and that he died on the cross, in the most in- 
 tense sense of filial relation to his Father in heaven, and 
 that he bore testimony to that Father's providence, love, 
 and grace toward mankind. The Lord's Prayer affords 
 sufficient evidence upon these points. If the Sermon on 
 the Mount alone be added, the whole unseen world, of 
 which the agnostic refuses to know anything, stands un- 
 veiled before us. There you see revealed the divine 
 Father and Creator of all things, in personal relation to 
 his creatures, hearing their prayers, witnessing their ac- 
 tions, caring for them and rewarding them. There you 
 
10 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 hear of a future judgment administered by Christ him- 
 self, and of a heaven to be hereafter revealed, in which 
 those who live as the children of that Father, and who 
 suffer in the cause and for the sake of Christ himself, 
 will be abundantly rewarded. If Jesus Christ preached 
 that sermon, made those promises, and taught that prayer, 
 then any one who says that we know nothing of God, or 
 of a future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does 
 not believe Jesus Christ. Since the days when our Lord 
 lived and taught, at all events, agnosticism has been im- 
 possible without infidelity. 
 
 Let it be observed, moreover, that to put the case in 
 this way is not merely to make an appeal to authority. It 
 goes further than that. It is in a vital respect an appeal 
 to experience, and so far to science itself. It is an appeal 
 to what I hope may be taken as, confessedly, the deepest 
 and most sacred moral experience which has ever been 
 known. No criticism worth mentioning doubts the story 
 of the Passion ; and that story involves the most solemn 
 attestation, again and again, of truths of which an agnos- 
 tic coolly says he knows nothing. An agnosticism which 
 knows nothing of the relation of man to God must not 
 only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching, 
 but must deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in 
 which he lived and died. It must declare that his most 
 intimate, most intense beliefs, and his dying aspirations, 
 were an illusion. Is that supposition tolerable? It is 
 because it is not tolerable, that men would fain avoid 
 facing it, and would have themselves called agnostics 
 rather than infidels ; but I know not whether this cool 
 and supercilious disregard of that solemn teaching, and 
 of that sacred life and death, be not more offensive 
 than the downright denials which look their responsi- 
 
OK AGNOSTICISM. 11 
 
 bility boldly in the face, and say, not only that they do 
 not know, but that they do not believe. This question 
 of living faith in a living God and Saviour, with all it 
 involves, is too urgent and momentous a thing to be put 
 aside with a philosophical "I don't know." The best 
 blood of the world has been shed over it ; the deepest 
 personal, social, and even political problems are still 
 bound up with it. The intensest moral struggles of 
 humanity have centered round this question, and it is 
 really intolerable that all this bitter experience of men 
 and women who have trusted and prayed, and suffered 
 and died, in faith, should be set aside as not germane to 
 a philosophical argument. 
 
 But, to say the least, from a purely scientific point of 
 view, there is a portentous fallacy in the manner in which, 
 in agnostic arguments, the testimony, not only of our 
 Lord, but of psalmists, prophets, apostles, and saints, is 
 disregarded. So far as the Christian faith can be treated 
 as a scientific question, it is a question of experience ; and 
 what is to be said of a science which leaves out of account 
 the most conspicuous and most influential experience in 
 the matter ? One thing may be said with confidence : 
 that it defeats itself, by disregarding the greatest force 
 with which it has to contend. While philosophers are 
 arguing as to the abstract capacities of human thought, 
 as though our Lord had never lived and died, he himself 
 is still speaking; his words, as recorded by his apostles 
 and evangelists, are still echoing over human hearts, 
 touching their inmost affections, appealing to their 
 deepest needs, commanding their profoundest trust, and 
 awakening in them an apprehension of that divine re- 
 lation and those unseen realities in which their spirits 
 live. While agnostics are committing the enormous sci- 
 
12 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 entific as well as moral blunder of considering the rela- 
 tions of men to God and to an unseen world without 
 taking his evidence into account, and then presuming to 
 judge the faith he taught by their own partial knowl- 
 edge, his word is still heard, in penetrating and comfort- 
 able words, bidding men believe in God and believe also 
 in himself. He, after all, is the one sufficient answer to 
 agnosticism, and — I will take the liberty of adding — to 
 atheism and to pessimism also. !Not merely his authority, 
 though that would be enough, but his life, his soul, 
 himself. 
 
 Accordingly, as our object here is to consider how to 
 deal with these difficulties and objections, what these con- 
 siderations would seem to point out is that we should take 
 care to let Christ and Christ's own message be heard, and 
 not to endure that they should be allowed to stand aside 
 while a philosophical debate is proceeding. Philosophers 
 are slow in these matters. They are still disputing, after 
 some twenty-five hundred years of discussion, what is the 
 true principle for determining moral right and wrong. 
 Meanwhile men have been content to live by the Ten 
 Commandments, and the main lines of duty are plain. 
 In the same way religion has preceded the philosophy of 
 religion, and men can be made sensible of their relation 
 to God whether it can be philosophically explained or not. 
 The Psalms, the Prophets, and, above all, the Gospels, 
 are plain evidence, in matter of fact, that men are in rela- 
 tion to God and owe duties to him. Let men be made to 
 attend to the facts ; let them hear those simple, plain, 
 and earnest witnesses ; above all, let them hear the voice 
 of Christ, and they will at least believe whatever may be 
 the possibilities of knowledge. In a word, let us imitate 
 St. Paul when his converts were perplexed by Greek 
 
ON A GNOSTICISM. 13 
 
 philosophies at Corinth : " I, brethren, when I came to 
 you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, 
 declaring nnto you the testimony of God; for I deter- 
 mined not to know anything among you save Jesus 
 Christ and him crucified." 
 
II. 
 AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 By Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY. 
 
 Within the last few months the public has received 
 much and varied information on the subject of agnostics, 
 their tenets, and even their future. Agnosticism exer- 
 cised the orators of the Church Congress at Manchester.* 
 It has been furnished with a set of " articles " fewer, but 
 not less rigid, and certainly not less consistent than the 
 thirty-nine ; its nature has been analyzed, and its future 
 severely predicted by the most eloquent of that prophet- 
 ical school whose Samuel is Auguste Comte. It may 
 still be a question, however, whether the public is as 
 much the wiser as might be expected, considering all the 
 trouble that has been taken to enlighten it. Not only 
 are the three accounts of the agnostic position sadly out 
 of harmony with one another, but I propose to show 
 cause for my belief that all three must be seriously ques- 
 tioned by any one who employs the term " agnostic " in 
 the sense in which it was originally used. The learned 
 principal of King's College, who brought the topic of ag- 
 nosticism before the Church Congress, took a short and 
 easy way of settling the business : 
 
 * See the " Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester," 
 October, 1888, pp. 253, 254. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 15 
 
 But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this arti- 
 cle of belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the 
 unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from 
 Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these 
 things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are 
 stated. He may prefer to call himself an agnostic ; but his real 
 name is an older one — he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. 
 The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Per- 
 haps it is right that it should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleas- 
 ant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe 
 in Jesus Christ. 
 
 And in the course of the discussion which followed, the 
 Bishop of Peterborough, departed so far from his custom- 
 ary courtesy and self-respect as to speak of "cowardly 
 agnosticism" (p. 262). 
 
 So much of Dr. Wace's address either explicitly or 
 implicitly concerns me, that I take upon myself to deal 
 with it ; but, in so doing, it must be understood that I 
 speak for myself alone ; I am not aware that there is any 
 sect of Agnostics ; and if there be, I am not its acknowl- 
 edged prophet or pope. I desire to leave to the Comtists 
 the entire monopoly of the manufacture of imitation 
 ecclesiasticism. 
 
 Let us calmly and dispassionately consider Dr. Wace's 
 appreciation of agnosticism. The agnostic, according to 
 his view, is a person who says he has no means of attain- 
 ing a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of the 
 future ; by which, somewhat loose phraseology Dr. "Wace 
 presumably means the theological unseen world and fu- 
 ture. I can not think this description happy either in 
 form or substance, but for the present it may pass. Dr. 
 Wace continues, that is not " his difference from Chris- 
 tians." Are there, then, any Christians who say that they 
 know nothing about the unseen world and the future ? I 
 
16 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 was ignorant of the fact, bnt I am ready to accept it on 
 the authority of a professional theologian, and I proceed 
 to Dr. Wace's next proposition. 
 
 The real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic 
 " does not believe the authority " on which " these things " 
 are stated, which authority is Jesns Christ. He is simply 
 an old-fashioned " infidel " who is afraid to own to his 
 right name. As "Presbyter is priest writ large," so is 
 " agnostic " the mere Greek equivalent for the Latin " in- 
 fidel." There is an attractive simplicity about this solu- 
 tion of the problem ; and it has that advantage of being 
 somewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which is so 
 dear to the less refined sort of controversialist. The ag- 
 nostic says, " I can not find good evidence that so and so 
 is true." " Ah," says his adversary, seizing his opportu- 
 nity, " then you declare that Jesus Christ was untruthful, 
 for he said so and so " ; a very telling method of rousing 
 prejudice. But suppose that the value of the evidence 
 as to what Jesus may have said and done, and as to the 
 exact nature and scope of his authority, is just that which 
 the agnostic finds it most difficult to determine? If I 
 venture to doubt that the Duke of Wellington gave the 
 command, " Up, Guards, and at 'em ! " at Waterloo, I do 
 not think that even Dr. Wace would accuse me of disbe- 
 lieving the duke. Yet it would be just as reasonable to 
 do this as to accuse any one of denying what Jesus said 
 before the preliminary question as to what he did say 
 is settled. 
 
 ISTow, the question as to what Jesus really said and 
 did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of so- 
 lution by no other methods than those practiced by the 
 historian and the literary critic. It is a problem of im- 
 mense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 17 
 
 heads in Europe for the last century ; and it is only of 
 late years that their investigations have begun to converge 
 toward one conclusion.* 
 
 That kind of faith which Dr. Wace describes and lauds 
 is of no use here. Indeed, he himself takes pains to de- 
 stroy its evidential value. 
 
 "What made the Mohammedan world? Trust and 
 faith in the declarations and assurances of Mohammed. 
 And what made the Christian world ? Trust and faith 
 in the declarations and assurances of Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles " (loo. cit., p. 253). The triumphant tone of this 
 imaginary catechism leads me to suspect that its author 
 has hardly appreciated its full import. Presumably, Dr. 
 Wace regards Mohammed as an unbeliever, or, to use the 
 term which he prefers, infidel ; and considers that his as- 
 surances have given rise to a vast delusion, which has led, 
 and is leading, millions of men straight to everlasting 
 punishment. And this being so, the " trust and faith " 
 which have " made the Mohammedan world," in just the 
 same sense as they have " made the Christian world," 
 must be trust and faith in falsehood. ~No man who has 
 
 * Dr. Wace tells us, " It may be asked how far we can rely on the ac- 
 counts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects." And he 
 seems to think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that 
 it " ought to be regarded as settled by M. Kenan's practical surrender of 
 the adverse case." I thought I knew M. Eenan's works pretty well, but I 
 have contrived to miss this " practical " (I wish Dr. Wace had defined the 
 scope of that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr. Wace can find 
 no difficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Renan's writings, by which 
 he feels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further enlight- 
 enment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if M. Kenan 
 were to retract and do penance in Notre Dame to-morrow for any contribu- 
 tions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main re- 
 sults of that criticism as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, 
 Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected. 
 
18 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 studied history, or even attended to the occurrences of 
 every-day life, can doubt the enormous practical value of 
 trust and faith ; but as little will he be inclined to deny 
 that this practical value has not the least relation to the 
 reality of the objects of that trust and faith. In ex- 
 amples of patient constancy of faith and of unswerving 
 trust, the " Acta Martyrum " do not excel the annals of 
 Babism. 
 
 The discussion upon which we have now entered goes 
 so thoroughly to the root of the whole matter ; the ques- 
 tion of the day is so completely, as the author of " Kobert 
 Elsmere " says, the value of testimony, that T shall offer 
 no apology for following it out somewhat in detail ; and, 
 by way of giving substance to the argument, I shall base 
 what I have to say upon a case, the consideration of 
 which lies strictly within the province of natural science, 
 and of that particular part of it known as the physiology 
 and pathology of the nervous system. 
 
 I find, in the second Gospel (chap, v), a statement, to 
 all appearance intended to have the same evidential value 
 as any other contained in that history. It is the well- 
 known story of the devils who were cast out of a man, 
 and ordered, or permitted, to enter into a herd of swine, 
 to the great loss and damage of the innocent Gerasene, 
 or Gadarene, pig-owners. There can be no doubt that 
 the narrator intends to convey to his readers his own con- 
 viction that this casting out and entering in were effected 
 by the agency of Jesus of Nazareth ; that, by speech and 
 action, Jesus enforced this conviction ; nor does any ink- 
 ling of the legal and moral difficulties of the case mani- 
 fest itself. 
 
 On the other hand, everything that I know of physio- 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 19 
 
 logical and pathological science leads me to entertain a 
 very strong conviction that the phenomena ascribed to 
 possession are as purely natural as those which constitute 
 small-pox ; everything that I know of anthropology leads 
 me to think that the belief in demons and demoniacal 
 possession is a mere survival of a once universal supersti- 
 tion, and that its persistence at the present time is pretty 
 much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, in- 
 telligence, and sound judgment of the population among 
 whom it prevails. Everything that I know of law and 
 justice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other 
 people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example. 
 Again, the study of history, and especially of that of the 
 fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, leaves no 
 shadow of doubt on my mind that the belief in the reality 
 of possession and of witchcraft, justly based, alike by 
 Catholics and Protestants, upon this and innumerable 
 other passages in both the Old and New Testaments, gave 
 rise, through the special influence of Christian ecclesias- 
 tics, to the most horrible persecutions and judicial mur- 
 ders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, wom- 
 en, and children. And when I reflect that the record 
 of a plain and simple declaration upon such an occasion 
 as this, that the belief in witchcraft and possession is 
 wicked nonsense, would have rendered the long agony of 
 mediaeval humanity impossible, I am prompted to reject, 
 as dishonoring, the supposition that such declaration was 
 withheld out of condescension to popular error. 
 
 " Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man " 
 (Mark v, 8),* are the words attributed to Jesus. If I de- 
 clare, as I have no hesitation in doing, that I utterly dis- 
 believe in the existence of " unclean spirits," and, conse- 
 
 * Here, as always, the revised version is cited. 
 
20 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 quently, in the possibility of their " coming forth " out of 
 a man, I suppose that Dr. Wace will tell me I am disre- 
 garding the "testimony of our Lord" (loc. cih, p. 255). 
 For if these words were really used, the most resourceful 
 of reconcilers can hardly venture to affirm that they are 
 compatible with a disbelief in "these things." As the 
 learned and fair-minded, as well as orthodox, Dr. Alexan- 
 der remarks, in an editorial note to the article " Demoni- 
 acs," in the " Biblical Cyclopaedia " (vol. i, p. 664:, note) : 
 
 ... On the lowest grounds on which our Lord and his apos- 
 tles can be placed, they must, at least, be regarded as honest men. 
 Now, though honest speech does not require that words should be 
 used always and only in their etymological sense, it does require 
 that they should not be used so as to affirm what the speaker knows 
 to be false. While, therefore, our Lord and his apostles might use 
 the word daifxovl£e<T0ai, or the phrase daiixoviov e'xeiv, as a popular 
 description of certain diseases, without giving in to the belief which 
 lay at the source of such a mode of expression, they could not speak 
 of demons entering into a man, or being cast out of him, without 
 pledging themselves to the belief of an actual possession of the man 
 by the demons (Campbell, " Prel. Diss.," vi, 1, 10). If, consequent- 
 ly, they did not hold this belief, they spoke not as honest men. 
 
 The story which we are considering does not rest on 
 the authority of the second Gospel alone. The third con- 
 firms the second, especially in the matter of commanding 
 the unclean spirit to come out of the man (Luke viii, 29) ; 
 and, although the first Gospel either gives a different ver- 
 sion of the same story, or tells another of like kind, the 
 essential point remains: "If thou cast us out, send us 
 away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, 
 Go ! " (Matthew viii, 31, 32). 
 
 If the concurrent testimony of the three synoptics, 
 then, is really sufficient to do away with all rational doubt 
 as to a matter of fact of the utmost practical and specu- 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 21 
 
 lative importance — belief or disbelief in which may affect, 
 and has affected, men's lives and their conduct toward 
 other men in the most serious way — then I am bound to 
 believe that Jesus implicitly affirmed himself to possess a 
 "knowledge of the unseen world," which afforded full 
 confirmation to the belief in demons and possession cur- 
 rent among his contemporaries. If the story is true, the 
 mediaeval theory of the invisible world may be, and prob- 
 ably is, quite correct ; and the witch-finders, from Spren- 
 ger to Hopkins and Mather, are much-maligned men. 
 
 On the other hand, humanity, noting the frightful 
 consequences of this belief ; common sense, observing the 
 futility of the evidence on which it is based, in all cases 
 that have been properly investigated ; science, more and 
 more seeing its way to inclose all the phenomena of so- 
 called " possession " within the domain of pathology, so 
 far as they are not to be relegated to that of the police — 
 all these powerful influences concur in warning us, at our 
 peril, against accepting the belief without the most care- 
 ful scrutiny of the authority on which it rests. 
 
 I can discern no escape from this dilemma: either 
 Jesus said what he is reported to have said, or he did not. 
 In the former case, it is inevitable that his authority on 
 matters connected with the "unseen world" should be 
 roughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the 
 authority of the synoptic gospels. If their report on a 
 matter of such stupendous and far-reaching practical im- 
 port as this is untrustworthy, how can we be sure of its 
 trustworthiness in other cases ? The favorite " earth," in 
 which the hard-pressed reconciler takes refuge, that the 
 Bible does not profess to teach science,* is stopped in this 
 
 * Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external 
 criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific 
 
22 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 instance. For the question of the existence of demons 
 and of possession by them, though it lies strictly within 
 the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and 
 religious significance. If physical and mental disorders 
 are caused by demons, Gregory of Tours and his contem- 
 poraries rightly considered that relics and exorcists were 
 more useful than doctors ; the gravest questions arise as 
 to the legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired 
 by demoniacal impulses ; and our whole conception of 
 the universe and of our relations to it becomes totally 
 different from what it would be on the contrary hy- 
 pothesis. 
 
 The theory of life of an average mediaeval Christian 
 was as different from that of an average nineteenth-cent- 
 ury Englishman as that of a West- African negro is now 
 in these respects. The modern world is slowly, but sure- 
 ly, shaking off these and other monstrous survivals of 
 savage delusions, and, whatever happens, it will not re- 
 turn to that wallowing in the mire. Until the contrary 
 is proved, I venture to doubt whether, at this present mo- 
 ment, any Protestant theologian, who has a reputation to 
 lose, will say that he believes the Gadarene story. 
 
 The choice then lies between discrediting those who 
 
 matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to be taken au serieuz 
 or not ? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New Testa- 
 ment, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also ac- 
 cepted as true therein ? By what mark does the story of the feeding with 
 manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific prob- 
 lems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the 
 inscription of the law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true ? If 
 the story of the Fall is not the true record of an historical occurrence, what 
 becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly con- 
 flicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of 
 the Creation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously 
 legendary series. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 23 
 
 compiled the gospel biographies and disbelieving the Mas- 
 ter, whom they, simple souls, thought to honor by pre- 
 serving such traditions of the exercise of his authority 
 over Satan's invisible world. This is the dilemma. No 
 deep scholarship, nothing but a knowledge of the revised 
 version (on which it is supposed all that mere scholarship 
 can do has been done), with the application thereto of the 
 commonest canons of common sense, is needful to ena- 
 ble us to make a choice between its horns. It is hardly 
 doubtful that the story, as told in the first Gospel, is mere- 
 ly a version of that told in the second and third. Nev- 
 ertheless, the discrepancies are serious and irreconcilable ; 
 and, on this ground alone, a suspension of judgment, at 
 the least, is called for. But there is a great deal more to 
 be said. From the dawn of scientific biblical criticism 
 until the present day the evidence against the long-cher- 
 ished notion that the three synoptic gospels are the works 
 of three independent authors, each prompted by divine 
 inspiration, has steadily accumulated, until, at the present 
 time, there is no visible escape from the conclusion that 
 each of the three is a compilation consisting of a ground- 
 work common to all three — the threefold tradition ; and 
 of a superstructure, consisting, firstly, of matter com- 
 mon to it with one of the others, and, secondly, of matter 
 special to each. The use of the terms " groundwork " and 
 "superstructure" by no means implies that the latter 
 must be of iater date than the former. On the contrary, 
 some parts of it may be, and probably are, older than some 
 parts of the groundwork.* 
 
 * See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott's 
 article on the Gospels in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"; and the remark- 
 able monograph by Prof. Volkmar, " Jesus Nazarenus und die erste Christ- 
 liche Zeit " (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writ- 
 
24: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The story of the Gadarenes wine belongs to the ground- 
 work ; at least, the essential part of it, in which the belief 
 in demoniac possession is expressed, does ; and therefore 
 the compilers of the first, second, and third Gospels, who- 
 ever they were, certainly accepted that belief (which, in- 
 deed, was universal among both Jews and pagans at that 
 time), and attributed it to Jesus. 
 
 "What then, do we know about the originator, or origi- 
 nators, of this groundwork — of that threefold edition 
 which all three witnesses (in Paley's phrase) agree upon 
 — that we should allow their mere statements to outweigh 
 the counter-arguments of humanity, of common sense, of 
 exact science, and to imperil the respect which all would 
 be glad to be able to render to their Master ? 
 
 Absolutely nothing.* There is no proof, nothing 
 more than a fair presumption, that any one of the Gospels 
 existed, in the state in which we find it in the authorized 
 version of the Bible, before the second century, or, in 
 other words, sixty or seventy years after the events record- 
 ed. And, between that time and the date of the oldest 
 extant manuscripts of the Gospels, there is no telling what 
 additions and alterations and interpolations may have been 
 made. It may be said that this is all mere speculation, 
 but it is a good deal more. As competent scholars and 
 honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to point out 
 that such things have happened even since the date of the 
 oldest known manuscripts. The oldest two copies of the 
 
 ters or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unim- 
 peachable. 
 
 * Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of 
 anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the " Quarterly Review," I re- 
 peat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they 
 have come to us, are the work of unknown writers. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 25 
 
 second Gospel end with the eighth verse of the sixteenth 
 chapter ; the remaining twelve verses are spurious, and it 
 is noteworthy that the maker of the addition has not hesi- 
 tated to introduce a speech in which Jesus promises his 
 disciples that " in my name shall they cast out devils." 
 
 The other passage " rejected to the margin " is still 
 more instructive. It is that touching apologue, with its 
 profound ethical sense, of the woman taken in adultery — 
 which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide, might 
 well be affirmed to be a typical example of the teachings 
 of Jesus. Yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, " Most of the 
 ancient authorities omit John vii, 53, viii 11." ISTow, let 
 any reasonable man ask himself this question : If, after 
 an approximative settlement of the canon of the New 
 Testament, and even later than the fourth and fifth cent- 
 uries, literary fabricators had the skill and the audacity 
 to make such additions and interpolations as these, what 
 may they have done when no one had thought of a canon ; 
 when oral tradition, still unfixed, was regarded as more 
 valuable than such written records as may have existed in 
 the latter portion of the first century % Or, to take the 
 other alternative, if those who gradually settled the canon 
 did not know of the existence of the oldest codices which 
 have come down to us ; or if, knowing them, they rejected 
 their authority, what is to be thought of their competency 
 as critics of the text ? 
 
 People who object to free criticism of the Christian 
 Scriptures forget that they are what they are in virtue of 
 very free criticism ; unless the advocates of inspiration are 
 prepared to affirm that the majority of influential ecclesi- 
 astics during several centuries were safeguarded against 
 error. For, even granting that some books of the period 
 were inspired, they were certainly few among many ; and 
 
26 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 those who selected the canonical books, unless they them- 
 selves were also inspired, must be regarded in the light 
 of mere critics, and, from the evidence they have left of 
 their intellectual habits, very uncritical critics. When 
 one thinks that such delicate questions as those involved 
 fell into the hands of men like Papias (who believed in 
 the famous millenarian grape story) ; of Irenseus with his 
 " reasons " for the existence of only four Gospels ; and of 
 such calm and dispassionate judges as Tertullian, with his 
 " Credo quia imjpossioile" the marvel is that the selection 
 which constitutes our New Testament is as free as it is 
 from obviously objectionable matter. The apocryphal 
 Gospels certainly deserve to be apocryphal ; but one may 
 suspect that a little more critical discrimination would 
 have enlarged the Apocrypha not inconsiderably. 
 
 At this point a very obvious objection arises and de- 
 serves full and candid consideration. It may be said that 
 critical skepticism carried to the length suggested is his- 
 torical pyrrhonism ; that if we are to altogether discredit 
 an ancient or a modern historian, because he has assumed 
 fabulous matter to be true, it will be as well to give up 
 paying any attention to history. It may be said, and with 
 great justice, that Eginhard's " Life of Charlemagne " is 
 none the less trustworthy because of the astounding reve- 
 lation of credulity, of lack of judgment, and even of re- 
 spect for the eighth commandment, which he has uncon- 
 sciously made in the " History of the Translation of the 
 Blessed Martyrs Marcellinus and Paul." Or, to go no 
 further back than the last number of this review, surely 
 that excellent lady, Miss Strickland, is not to be refused 
 all credence because of the myth about the second James's 
 remains, which she seems to have unconsciously invented. 
 
 Of course this is perfectly true. I am afraid there is 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 27 
 
 no man alive whose witness could be accepted, if the con- 
 dition precedent were proof that he had never invented 
 and promulgated a myth. In the minds of all of us there 
 are little places here and there, like the indistinguishable 
 spots on a rock which give foothold to moss or stone-crop ; 
 on which, if the germ of a myth fall, it is certain to grow, 
 without in the least degree affecting our accuracy or 
 truthfulness elsewhere. Sir Walter Scott knew that he 
 could not repeat a story without, as he said, " giving it a 
 new hat and stick." Most of us differ from Sir Walter 
 only in not knowing about this tendency of the mythopoeic 
 faculty to break out unnoticed. But it is also perfectly 
 true that the mythopoeic faculty is not equally active on 
 all minds, nor in all regions and under all conditions of 
 the same mind. David Hume was certainly not so liable 
 to temptation as the Venerable Bede, or even as some 
 recent historians who could be mentioned ; and the most 
 imaginative of debtors, if he owes five pounds, never 
 makes an obligation to pay a hundred out of it. The rule 
 of common sense is prima facie to trust a witness in all 
 matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his 
 prejudices, nor that love of the marvelous, which is in- 
 herent to a greater or less degree in all mankind, are 
 strongly concerned ; and, when they are involved, to re- 
 quire corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the 
 contravention of probability by the thing testified. 
 
 Now, in the Gadarene affair, I do not think I am un- 
 reasonably skeptical if I say that the existence of demons 
 who can be transferred from a man to a pig does thus 
 contravene probability. Let me be perfectly candid. I 
 admit I have no a priori objection to offer. There are 
 physical things, such as toenice and trichina, which can be 
 transferred from men to pigs, and vice versa, and which 
 
28 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 do undoubtedly produce most diabolical and deadly effects 
 on both. For anything I can absolutely prove to the con- 
 trary, there may be spiritual things capable of the same 
 transmigration, with like effects. Moreover, I am bound 
 to add that perfectly truthful persons, for whom I have 
 the greatest respect, believe in stories about spirits of the 
 present day, quite as improbable as that we are consid- 
 ering. 
 
 So I declare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to 
 show cause why these transferable devils should not exist ; 
 nor can I deny that, not merely the whole Roman Church, 
 but many Wacean "infidels" of no mean repute, do 
 honestly and firmly believe that the activity of such-like 
 demonic beings is in full swing in this year of grace 1889. 
 
 Nevertheless, as good Bishop Butler says, " probability 
 is the guide of life," and it seems to me that this is just 
 one of the cases in which the canon of credibility and tes- 
 timony, which I have ventured to lay down, has full force. 
 So that, with the most entire respect for many (by no 
 means for all) of our witnesses for the truth of demon- 
 ology, ancient and modern, I conceive their evidence on 
 this particular matter to be ridiculously insufficient to 
 warrant their conclusion.* 
 
 * Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form. 
 Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. 
 These events are inexplicable, except the agency of " spirits " is admitted. 
 Therefore " spirits " were the cause of the phenomena. 
 
 And the heads of the reply are always the same. Kemember Goethe's 
 aphorism: " Alles factische ist schon Theorie." Trustworthy witnesses are 
 constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensi- 
 ble phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these 
 cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits ; and there is abundant 
 ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways. 
 
 Therefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 29 
 
 After what lias been said I do not think that any sen- 
 sible man, unless he happen to be angry, will accuse me 
 of " contradicting the Lord and his apostles " if I reiterate 
 my total disbelief in the whole Gadarene story. But, if 
 that story is discredited, all the other stories of demoniac 
 possession fall under suspicion. And if the belief in 
 demons and demoniac possession, which forms the somber 
 background of the whole picture of primitive Christianity 
 presented to us in the New Testament, is shaken, what is 
 to be said, in any case, of the uncorroborated testimony of 
 the Gospels with respect to the " unseen world " % 
 
 I am not aware that I have been influenced by any 
 more bias in regard to the Gadarene story than I have 
 been in dealing with other cases of like kind the investi- 
 gation of which has interested me. I was brought up in 
 the strictest school of evangelical orthodoxy ; and, when I 
 was old enough to think for myself, I started upon my 
 journey of inquiry with little doubt about the general 
 truth of what I had been taught ; and with that feeling of 
 the unpleasantness of being called an " infidel " which, 
 we are told, is so right and proper. Near my journey's 
 end, I find myself in a condition of something more than 
 mere doubt about these matters. 
 
 In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with 
 fossil remains which looked quite plain at a distance, and 
 became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their 
 outline by close inspection. There was something there 
 — something which, if I could win assurance about it, 
 might mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; 
 but, study as long as I might, certainty eluded my 
 
 as it stands, is suspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even 
 that suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of 
 probability. 
 
30 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 grasp. So has it been with me in my efforts to define the 
 grand figure of Jesus as it lies in the primary strata of 
 Christian literature. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ 
 depicted in the Catacombs? Or is he the stern judge 
 who frowns above the altar of SS. Cosmas and Damianus ? 
 Or can he be rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic, 
 broken down by physical pain, of too many mediseval 
 pictures % Are we to accept the Jesus of the second, or 
 the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, as the true Jesus % What 
 did he really say and do ; and how much that is attributed 
 to him in speech and action is the embroidery of the vari- 
 ous parties into which his followers tended to split them- 
 selves within twenty years of his death, when even the 
 threefold tradition was only nascent % 
 
 If any one will answer these questions for me with 
 something more to the point than feeble talk about the 
 " cowardice of agnosticism," I shall be deeply his debtor. 
 Unless and until they are satisfactorily answered, I say of 
 agnosticism in this matter, "J'y suis, etfy reste." 
 
 But, as we have seen, it is asserted that I have no busi- 
 ness to call myself an agnostic ; that if I am not a Chris- 
 tian I am an infidel ; and that I ought to call myself by 
 that name of " unpleasant significance." Well, I do not 
 care much what I am called by other people, and, if I had 
 at my side all those who since the Christian era have been 
 called infidels by other folks, I could not desire better 
 company. If these are my ancestors, I prefer, with the 
 old Frank, to be with them wherever they are. But there 
 are several points in Dr. Wace's contention which must 
 be eliminated before I can even think of undertaking to 
 carry out his wishes. I must, for instance, know what a 
 Christian is. Now what is a Christian ? By whose au- 
 thority is the signification of that term defined ? Is there 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 31 
 
 any doubt that the immediate followers of Jesus, the 
 " sect of the JSazarenes," were strictly orthodox Jews, dif- 
 fering from other Jews not more than the Sadducees, the 
 Pharisees, and the Essenes differed from one another ; in 
 fact, only in the belief that the Messiah, for whom the 
 rest of their nation waited, had come ? Was not their 
 chief, " James, the brother of the Lord," reverenced alike 
 by Sadducee, Pharisee, and Nazarene? At the famous 
 conference which, according to the Acts, took place at 
 Jerusalem, does not James declare that "myriads" of 
 Jews, who, by that time had become Nazarenes, were " all 
 zealous for the law " ? "Was not the name of " Christian " 
 first used to denote the converts to the doctrine promul- 
 gated by Paul and Barnabas at Antioch ? Does the sub- 
 sequent history of Christianity leave any doubt that, from 
 this time forth, the " little rift within the lute," caused by 
 the new teaching developed, if not inaugurated, at An- 
 tioch, grew wider and wider, until the two types of doc- 
 trine irreconcilably diverged ? Did not the primitive 
 Nazarenism or Ebionism develop into the Nazarenism, 
 and Ebionism, and Elkasaitism of later ages, and finally 
 die out in obscurity and condemnation as damnable heresy ; 
 while the younger doctrine throve and pushed out its 
 shoots into that endless variety of sects, of which the three 
 strongest survivors are the Pom an and Greek Churches 
 and modern Protestantism ? 
 
 Singular state of things ! If I were to profess the 
 doctrine which was held by " James, the brother of the 
 Lord," and by every one of the " myriads " of his follow- 
 ers and co-religionists in Jerusalem up to twenty or thirty 
 years after the crucifixion (and one knows not how much 
 later at Pella), I should be condemned with unanimity as 
 an ebionizing heretic by the Eoman, Greek, and Protes- 
 
32 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 tant Churches ! And, probably, this hearty and unani- 
 mous condemnation of the creed held by those who were 
 in the closest personal relation with their Lord is almost 
 the only point upon which they would be cordially of 
 one mind. On the other hand — though I hardly dare 
 imagine such a thing — I very much fear that the " pil- 
 lars" of the primitive Hierosolymitan Church would 
 have considered Dr. Wace an infidel. No one can read 
 the famous second chapter of Galatians and the book of 
 Revelation without seeing how narrow was even Paul's 
 escape from a similar fate. And, if ecclesiastical history 
 is to be trusted, the thirty-nine articles, be they right or 
 wrong, diverge from the primitive doctrine of the JSaza- 
 renes vastly more than even Pauline Christianity did. 
 
 But, further than this, I have great difficulty in assur- 
 ing myself that even James, " the brother of the Lord," 
 and his "myriads" of Nazarenes, properly represented 
 the doctrines of their Master. For it is constantly asserted 
 by our modern "pillars " that one of the chief features 
 of the work of Jesus was the instauration of religion by 
 the abolition of what our sticklers for articles and litur- 
 gies, with unconscious humor, call the narrow restrictions 
 of the law. Yet, if James knew this, how could the 
 bitter controversy with Paul have arisen ; and why did 
 one or the other side not quote any of the various sayings 
 of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels, which directly bear on 
 the question — sometimes, apparently, in opposite direc- 
 tions ? 
 
 So, if I am asked to call myself an " infidel," I reply, 
 To what doctrine do you ask me to be faithful ? Is it 
 that contained in the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds ? 
 My firm belief is that the Nazarenes, say of the year 40, 
 headed by James, would have stopped their ears and 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 33 
 
 thought worthy of stoning the audacious man who pro- 
 pounded it to them. Is it contained in the so-called 
 Apostles' Creed ? I am pretty sure that even that would 
 have created a recalcitrant commotion at Pella in the year 
 70, among the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, who had fled 
 from the soldiers of Titus. And yet if the unadulterated 
 tradition of the teachings of " the Nazarene " were to be 
 found anywhere, it surely should have been amid those 
 not very aged disciples who may have heard them as they 
 were delivered. 
 
 Therefore, however sorry I may be to be unable to 
 demonstrate that, if necessary, I should not be afraid to 
 call myself an " infidel," I can not do it, even to gratify 
 the Bishop of Peterborough and Dr. "Wace. And I would 
 appeal to the bishop, whose native sense of humor is not 
 the least marked of his many excellent gifts and virtues, 
 whether asking a man to call himself an " infidel " is not 
 rather a droll request. " Infidel " is a term of reproach, 
 which Christians and Mohammedans, in their modesty, 
 agree to apply to those who differ from them. If he had 
 only thought of it, Dr. Wace might have used the term 
 "miscreant," which, with the same etymological signifi- 
 cation, has the advantage of being still more " unpleas- 
 ant " to the persons to whom it is applied. But, in the 
 name of all that is Hibernian, I ask the Bishop of Peter- 
 borough why should a man be expected to call himself a 
 "miscreant" or an "infidel"? That St. Patrick "had 
 two birthdays because he was a twin " is a reasonable and 
 intelligible utterance beside that of the man who should 
 declare himself to be an infidel on the ground of deny- 
 ing his own belief. It may be logically, if not ethically, 
 defensible, that a Christian should call a Mohammedan 
 an infidel, and vice versa ; but, on Dr. Wace's principles, 
 
34 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 both ought to call themselves infidels, because each ap- 
 plies that term to the other. 
 
 Now I am afraid that all the Mohammedan world 
 would agree in reciprocating that appellation to Dr. Wace 
 himself. I once visited the Hazar Mosque, the great uni- 
 versity of Mohammedanism, in Cairo, in ignorance of the 
 fact that I was unprovided with proper authority. A 
 swarm of angry undergraduates, as I suppose I ought to 
 call them, came buzzing about me and my guide ; and, if 
 I had known Arabic, I suspect that " dog of an infidel " 
 would have been by no means the most " unpleasant " of 
 the epithets showered upon me, before I could explain and 
 apologize for the mistake. If I had had the pleasure of 
 Dr. Wace's company on that occasion, the undiscriminative 
 followers of the Prophet would, I am afraid, have made 
 no difference between us ; not even if they had known 
 that he was the head of an orthodox Christian seminary. 
 And I have not the smallest doubt that even one of the 
 learned mollahs, if his grave courtesy would have per- 
 mitted him to say anything offensive to men of another 
 mode of belief, would have told us that he wondered we 
 did not find it " very unpleasant " to disbelieve in the 
 Prophet of Islam. 
 
 From what precedes, I think it becomes sufficiently 
 clear that Dr. Wace's account of the origin of the name 
 of " Agnostic " is quite wrong. Indeed, I am bound to 
 add that very slight effort to discover the truth would 
 have convinced him that, as a matter of fact, the term 
 arose otherwise. I am loath to go over an old story once 
 more ; but more than one object which I have in view 
 will be served by telling it a little more fully than it has 
 yet been told. 
 
 Looking back nearly fifty years, I see myself as a boy, 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 35 
 
 whose education had been interrupted, and who, intel- 
 lectually; was left, for some years, altogether to his own 
 devices. At that time I was a voracious and omnivorous 
 reader ; a dreamer and speculator of the first water, well 
 endowed with that splendid courage in attacking any and 
 every subject which is the blessed compensation of youth 
 and inexperience. Among the books and essays, on all 
 sorts of topics from metaphysics to heraldry, which I read 
 at this time, two left indelible impressions on my mind. 
 One was Guizot's " History of Civilization," the other 
 was Sir William Hamilton's essay " On the Philosophy 
 of the Unconditioned," which I came upon, by chance, 
 in an odd volume of the " Edinburgh Review." The lat- 
 ter was certainly strange reading for a boy, and I could 
 not possibly have understood a great deal of it ; * never- 
 theless, I devoured it with avidity, and it stamped upon 
 my mind the strong conviction that, on even the most 
 solemn and important of questions, men are apt to take 
 cunning phrases for answers ; and that the limitation of 
 our faculties, in a great number of cases, renders real an- 
 swers to such questions not merely actually impossible, 
 but theoretically inconceivable. 
 
 Philosophy and history having laid hold of me in this 
 eccentric fashion, have never loosened their grip. I 
 have no pretension to be an expert in either subject ; but 
 the turn for philosophical and historical reading, which 
 rendered Hamilton and Guizot attractive to me, has not 
 only filled many lawful leisure hours, and still more sleep- 
 less ones, with the repose of changed mental occupation, 
 
 * Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, 
 many years afterward, when Dean Mansell's Bampton lectures were pub- 
 lished, it seemed to me I already knew all that this eminently agnostic 
 thinker had to tell me. 
 
36 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 but has not unf requently disputed my proper work-time 
 with my liege lady, Natural Science. In this way I have 
 found it possible to cover a good deal of ground in the 
 territory of philosophy ; and all the more easily that I 
 have never cared much about A's or B's opinions, but 
 have rather sought to know what answer he had to give 
 to the questions I had to put to him — that of the limita- 
 tion of possible knowledge being the chief. The ordinary 
 examiner, with his " State the views of So-and-so," would 
 have floored me at any time. If he had said, " What do 
 you think about any given problem ? " I might have got 
 on fairly well. 
 
 The reader who has had the patience to follow the en- 
 forced, but unwilling, egotism of this veritable history 
 (especially if his studies have led him in the same direc- 
 tion), will now see why my mind steadily, gravitated 
 toward the conclusions of Hume and Kant, so well stated 
 by the latter in a sentence, which I have quoted else- 
 where : 
 
 " The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philoso- 
 phy of pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it 
 serves not as an organon for the enlargement [of knowl- 
 edge], but as a discipline for its delimitation ; and, instead 
 of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of pre- 
 venting error." * 
 
 When I reached intellectual maturity and began to 
 ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pan- 
 theist ; a materialist or an idealist ; a Christian or a free- 
 thinker — I found that the more I learned and reflected, 
 the less ready was the answer ; until, at last, I came to 
 the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any 
 of these denominations, except the last. The one thing 
 
 * " Kritik der reinen Vernunft." Edit. Hartenstein, p. 256. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 37 
 
 in which most of these good people were agreed waa the 
 one thing in which I differed from them. They were 
 quite sure they had attained a certain " gnosis " — had, 
 more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence ; 
 while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong 
 conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with 
 Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself pre- 
 sumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. Like Dante — 
 
 " Nel mezzo del cainmin di nostra vita 
 Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura," * 
 
 but, unlike Dante, I can not add — 
 
 " Che la diritta via era smarrita." t 
 
 On the contrary, I had, and have, the firmest conviction 
 that I never left the "verace via" — the straight road; 
 and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark 
 depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have 
 found leopards and lions in the path ; though I have 
 made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, 
 that with "privy paw devours apace and nothing said," 
 as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and 
 though no friendly specter has even yet offered his guid- 
 ance, I was, and am, minded to go straight on, until I 
 either come out on the other side of the wood, or find 
 there is no other side to it — at least, none attainable 
 by me. 
 
 This was my situation when I had the good fortune 
 to find a place among the members of that remarkable 
 confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of 
 green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. 
 
 * [In the midway of this our mortal life 
 
 I found me in a gloomy wood astray.] 
 f [Gone from the path direct.] 
 
38 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion 
 was represented there, and expressed itself with entire 
 openness; most of my colleagues were ists of one sort 
 or another ; and, however kind and friendly they might 
 be, I, the man without a rag of a. label to cover himself 
 with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings 
 which must have beset the historical fox when, after leav- 
 ing the trap in which his tail remained, he presented 
 himself to his normally elongated companions. So I 
 took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the 
 appropriate title of " agnostic." It came into my head 
 as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church 
 history, who professed to know so much about the very 
 things of which I was ignorant ; and I took the earliest 
 opportunity of parading it at our society, to show that I, 
 too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satis- 
 faction, the term took; and when the "Spectator" had 
 stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of re- 
 spectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might 
 have awakened, was, of course, completely lulled. 
 
 That is the history of the origin of the terms " agnos- 
 tic " and " agnosticism " ; and it will be observed that it 
 does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the 
 reverend Principal of King's College, that " the adoption 
 of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, 
 and that it involves a mere evasion " in relation to the 
 Church and Christianity.* 
 
 The last objection (I rejoice, as much as my readers 
 must do, that it is the last) which I have to take to Dr. 
 Wace's deliverance before the Church Congress arises, I 
 am sorry to say, on a question of morality. 
 
 * Page 6. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 39 
 
 "It is, and it ought to be," authoritatively declares 
 this official representative of Christian ethics, "an un- 
 pleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he 
 does not believe in Jesus Christ " (I. <?., p. 254). 
 
 Whether it is so, depends, I imagine, a good deal on 
 whether the man was brought up in a Christian house- 
 hold or not. I do not see why it should be " unpleasant " 
 for a Mohammedan or a Buddhist to say so. But that 
 " it ought to be " unpleasant for any man to say anything 
 which he sincerely, and after due deliberation, believes, 
 is, to my mind, a proposition of the most profoundly im- 
 moral character. I verily believe that the great good 
 which has been effected in the world by Christianity has 
 been largely counteracted by the pestilent doctrine on 
 which all the churches have insisted, that honest disbe- 
 lief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a moral 
 offense, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving and 
 involving the same future retribution as murder and 
 robbery. If we could only see, in one view, the torrents 
 of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the vio- 
 lations of every obligation of humanity, which have 
 flowed from this source along the course of the history of 
 Christian nations, our worst imaginations of hell would 
 pale beside the vision. 
 
 A thousand times, no ! It ought not to be unpleasant 
 to say that which one honestly believes or disbelieves. 
 That it so constantly is painful to do so, is quite enough 
 obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most valu- 
 able of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without 
 erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into some- 
 thing to be admired and cherished. The bravest of 
 soldiers often, and very naturally, " feel it unpleasant " to 
 go into action; but a court-martial which did its duty 
 
40 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 would make short work of the officer who promulgated 
 the doctrine that his men ought to feel their duty un- 
 pleasant. 
 
 I am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful 
 people are in these times, that the process of breaking 
 away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant ; and I am 
 much disposed to think that the encouragement, the con- 
 solation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in 
 even the worst forms of Christianity are of great practi- 
 cal advantage to them. What deductions must be made 
 from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citi- 
 zen by the ascetic other - worldliness of logical Chris- 
 tianity ; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all un- 
 charitableness of sectarian bigotry ; to the legislator, by 
 the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that 
 count themselves pillars of orthodoxy ; to the philosopher, 
 by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching 
 which every church exercises, when it is strong enough ; 
 to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting 
 after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theo- 
 logical error, and the overpowering terror of possible 
 damnation, which have accompanied the churches like 
 their shadow, I need not now consider ; but they are 
 assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one 
 side, they gain a good deal on the other. People who 
 talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its dis- 
 comforts ; they ignore the fact that the Christianity of the 
 churches is something more than faith in the ideal per- 
 sonality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, plus 
 so much as can be carried into practice, without disorgan- 
 izing civil society, of the maxims of the Sermon on the 
 Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doc- 
 trine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail to get 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 41 
 
 properly baptized before you die, and a plebiscite of the 
 Christians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, 
 would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense 
 majority. 
 
 Preachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears 
 that the world can not get on without faith of some sort. 
 There is a sense in which that is as eminently as obvious- 
 ly true ; there is another, in which, in my judgment, it is 
 as eminently as obviously false, and it seems to me that 
 the hortatory, or pulpit, mind is apt to oscillate between 
 the false and the true meanings, without being aware of 
 the fact. 
 
 It is quite true that the ground of every one of our 
 actions, and the validity of all our reasonings, rest upon 
 the great act of faith, which leads us to take the experi- 
 ence of the past as a safe guide in our dealings with the 
 present and the future. From the nature of ratiocination 
 it is obvious that the axioms on which it is based can not 
 be demonstrated by ratiocination. It is also a trite ob- 
 servation that, in the business of life, we constantly take 
 the most serious action upon evidence of an utterly insuf- 
 ficient character. But it is surely plain that faith is not 
 necessarily entitled to dispense with ratiocination because 
 ratiocination can not dispense with faith as a starting- 
 point; and that because we are often obliged, by the 
 pressure of events, to act on very bad evidence, it does 
 not follow that it is proper to act on such evidence when 
 the pressure is absent. 
 
 The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that 
 " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving 
 of things not seen." In the authorized version "sub- 
 stance " stands for " assurance," and " evidence " for " the 
 proving." The question of the exact meaning of the two 
 
,42 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 words, v7r6(TTaatg and eXe^o?, affords a fine field of dis- 
 cussion for the scholar and the metaphysician. But I 
 fancy we shall be not far from the mark if we take the 
 writer to have had in his mind the profound psychological 
 truth that men constantly feel certain about things for 
 which they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the 
 legal or logical sense of the word ; and he calls this feel- 
 ing " faith." I may have the most absolute faith that a 
 friend has not committed the crime of which he is ac- 
 cused. In the early days of English history, if my friend 
 could have obtained a few more compurgators of like 
 robust faith, he would have been acquitted. At the pres- 
 ent day, if I tendered myself as a witness on that score, 
 the judge would tell me to stand down, and the youngest 
 barrister would smile at my simplicity. Miserable indeed 
 is the man who has not such faith in some of his fellow- 
 men — only less miserable than the man who allows him- 
 self to forget that such faith is not, strictly speaking, evi- 
 dence ; and when his faith is disappointed, as will happen 
 now and again, turns Timon and blames the universe for 
 his own blunders. And so, if a man can find a friend, 
 the hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical 
 ideal, in the Jesus of any, or all, of the Gospels, let him 
 live by faith in that ideal. Who shall or can forbid him % 
 But let him not delude himself with the notion that his 
 faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which 
 he trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the 
 use of the methods of science, as applied to history and 
 to literature, and it amounts at present to very little. 
 
 It appears that Mr. Gladstone, some time ago, asked Mr. 
 Laing if he could draw up a short summary of the negative 
 creed ; a body of negative propositions, which have so far 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 43 
 
 been adopted on the negative side as to be what the Apos- 
 tles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive ; and 
 Mr. Laing at once kindly obliged Mr. Gladstone with the 
 desired articles — eight of them. 
 
 If any one had preferred this request to me, I should 
 have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no 
 creed ; and, by the nature of the case, can not have any. 
 Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the 
 essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a sin- 
 gle principle. That principle is of great antiquity ; it is 
 as old as Socrates ; as old as the writer who said, " Try all 
 things, hold fast by that which is good " ; it is the foun- 
 dation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the 
 axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for 
 the faith that is in him ; it is the great principle of Des- 
 cartes ; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. 
 Positively the principle may be expressed : In matters of 
 the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, 
 without regard to any other consideration. And nega- 
 tively : In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that 
 conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or 
 demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which 
 if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed 
 to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may 
 have in store for him. 
 
 The results of the working out of the agnostic prin- 
 ciple will vary according to individual knowledge and 
 capacity, and according to the general condition of sci- 
 ence. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by 
 the help of new discoveries, to-morrow. The only nega- 
 tive iixed points will be those negations which flow from 
 the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the 
 only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open 
 
U AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 to conviction. Agnostics who never fail in carrying out 
 their principles are, I am afraid, as rare as other people of 
 whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated. 
 But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell 
 him that you had discovered that two and two make five, 
 he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that 
 conviction, and express his readiness to agree with you if 
 he found them satisfactory. The apostolic injunction to 
 " suffer fools gladly," should be the rule of life of a true 
 agnostic. I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall 
 short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of 
 what agnostics ought to be. 
 
 However, as I began by stating, I speak only for my- 
 self ; and I do not dream of anathematizing and excom- 
 municating Mr. Laing. But, when I consider his creed 
 and compare it with the Athanasian, I think I have, on 
 the whole, a clearer conception of the meaning of the lat- 
 ter. " Polarity," in Article viii, for example, is a word 
 about which I heard a good deal in my youth, when 
 " Naturphilosophie " was in fashion, and greatly did I 
 suffer from it. For many years past, whenever I have 
 met with "polarity" anywhere but in a discussion of 
 some purely physical topic, such as magnetism, I have 
 shut the book. Mr. Laing must excuse me if the force 
 of habit was too much for me when I read his eighth ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 And now, what is to be said to Mr. Harrison's re- 
 markable deliverance " On the future of agnosticism " ? * 
 I would that it were not my business to say anything, for 
 I am afraid that I can say nothing which shall manifest 
 my great personal respect for this able writer, and for 
 
 * " Fortnightly Review," January, 1889. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 45 
 
 the zeal and energy with which he ever and anon galvan- 
 izes the weakly frame of positivism until it looks more 
 than ever like John Bunyan's Pope and Pagan rolled 
 into one. There is a story often repeated, and I am 
 afraid none the less mythical on that account, of a valiant 
 and loud-voiced corporal, in command of two full privates, 
 who, falling in with a regiment of the enemy in the dark, 
 orders it to surrender under pain of instant annihilation 
 by his force ; and the enemy surrenders accordingly. I 
 am always reminded of this tale when I read the positiv- 
 ist commands to the forces of Christianity and of Science ; 
 only the enemy show no more signs of intending to obey 
 now than they have done any time these forty years. 
 
 The allocution under consideration has the papal flavor 
 which is wont to hang about the utterances of the pon- 
 tiffs of the Church of Comte. Mr. Harrison speaks with 
 authority, and not as one of the common scribes of the 
 period. He knows not only what agnosticism is and how 
 it has come about, but what will become of it. The ag- 
 nostic is to content himself with being the precursor of 
 the positivist. In his place, as a sort of navvy leveling 
 the ground and cleansing it of such poor stuff as Chris- 
 tianity, he is a useful creature who deserves patting on 
 the back, on condition that he does not venture beyond 
 his last. But let not these scientific Sanballats presume 
 that they are good enough to take part in the building of 
 the temple — they are mere Samaritans, doomed to die 
 out in proportion as the Keligion of Humanity is ac- 
 cepted by mankind. Well, if that is their fate, they 
 have time to be cheerful. But let us hear Mr. Harrison's 
 pronouncement of their doom : 
 
 " Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion, 
 an entirely negative stage, the point reached by physicists, 
 
46 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 a purely mental conclusion, with no relation to things 
 social at all " (p. 154). I am quite dazed by this declara- 
 tion. Are there, then, any " conclusions " that are not 
 " purely mental " % Is there " no relation to things social" 
 in "mental conclusions" which affect men's whole con- 
 ception of life? Was that prince of agnostics, David 
 Hume, particularly imbued with physical science ? Sup- 
 posing physical science to be non-existent, would not the 
 agnostic principle, applied by the philologist and the his- 
 torian, lead to exactly the same results ? Is the modern 
 more or less complete suspension of judgment as to the 
 facts of the history of regal Home, or the real origin of 
 the Homeric poems, anything but agnosticism in history 
 and in literature ? And if so, how can agnosticism be 
 the " mere negation of the physicist " ? 
 
 " Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion." 
 'No two people agree as to what is meant by the term 
 " religion " ; but if it means, as I think it ought to mean, 
 simply the reverence and love for the ethical ideal, and 
 the desire to realize that ideal in life, which every man 
 ought to feel — then I say agnosticism has no more to do 
 with it than it has to do with music or painting. If, on 
 the other hand, Mr. Harrison, like most people, means by 
 " religion " theology, then, in my judgment, agnosticism 
 can be said to be a stage in its evolution, only as death 
 may be said to be the final stage in the evolution of life. 
 
 When agnostic logic is simply one of the canons of thought, ag- 
 nosticism, as a distinctive faith, will have spontaneously disappeared 
 (p. 155). 
 
 I can but marvel that such sentences as this, and those 
 already quoted, should have proceeded from Mr. Harri- 
 son's pen. Does he really mean to suggest that agnostics 
 have a logic peculiar to themselves ? Will he kindly help 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 47 
 
 me out of my bewilderment when I try to think of 
 " logic " being anything else than the canon (which, I 
 believe means rule) of thought % As to agnosticism be- 
 ing a distinctive faith, I have already shown that it can 
 not possibly be anything of the kind ; unless perfect faith 
 in logic is distinctive of agnostics, which, after all, it 
 may be. 
 
 Agnosticism as a religious philosophy per se rests on an almost 
 total ignoring of history and social evolution (p. 152). 
 
 But neither per se nor per aliud has agnosticism (if I 
 know anything about it) the least pretension to be a re- 
 ligious philosophy ; so far from resting on ignorance of 
 history, and that social evolution of which history is the 
 account, it is and has been the inevitable result of the 
 strict adherence to scientific methods by historical inves- 
 tigators. Our forefathers were quite confident about the 
 existence of Romulus and Remus, of King Arthur, and 
 of Hengst and Horsa. Most of us have become agnostics 
 in regard to the reality of these worthies. It is a matter 
 of notoriety, of which Mr. Harrison, who accuses us all 
 so freely of ignoring history, should not be ignorant, that 
 the critical process which has shattered the foundations 
 of orthodox Christian doctrine owes its origin, not to the 
 devotees of physical science, but, before all, to Richard 
 Simon, the learned French Oratorian, just two hundred 
 years ago. I can not find evidence that either Simon, or 
 any one of the great scholars and critics of the eighteenth 
 and nineteenth centuries who have continued Siren's 
 work, had any particular acquaintance with physical 
 science. I have already pointed out that Hume was 
 independent of it. And certainly one of the most potent 
 influences in the same direction, upon history in the 
 
48 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 present century, that of Grote, did not come from the 
 physical side. Physical science, in fact, has had nothing 
 directly to do with the criticism of the Gospels ; it is 
 wholly incompetent to furnish demonstrative evidence 
 that any statement made in these histories is untrue. In- 
 deed, modern physiology can find parallels in nature for 
 events of apparently the most eminently supernatural 
 kind recounted in some of those histories. 
 
 It is a comfort to hear, upon Mr. Harrison's authority, 
 that the laws of physical nature show no signs of becom- 
 ing " less definite, less consistent, or less popular as time 
 goes on" (p. 154). How a law of nature is to become 
 indefinite, or " inconsistent," passes my poor powers of 
 imagination. But with universal suffrage and the coach- 
 dog theory of premiership in full view; the theory, I 
 mean, that the whole duty of a political chief is to look 
 sharp for the way the social coach is driving, and then 
 run in front and bark loud — as if being the leading noise- 
 maker and guiding were the same things — it is truly 
 satisfactory to me to know that the laws of nature are 
 increasing in popularity. Looking at recent develop- 
 ments of the policy which is said to express the great 
 heart of the people, I have had my doubts of the fact ; 
 and my love for my fellow-countrymen has led me to 
 reflect with dread on what will happen to them, if any of 
 the laws of nature ever become so unpopular in their eyes 
 as to be voted down by the transcendent authority of 
 universal suffrage. If the legion of demons, before they 
 set out on their journey in the swine, had had time to 
 hold a meeting and to resolve unanimously, "That the 
 law of gravitation is oppressive and ought to be re- 
 pealed," I am afraid it would have made no sort of dif- 
 ference to the result, when their two thousand unwilling 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 49 
 
 porters were once launched down the steep slopes of the 
 fatal shore of Gennesaret. 
 
 The question of the place of religion as an element of human 
 nature, as a force of human society, its origin, analysis, and func- 
 tions, has never been considered at all from an agnostic point of 
 view (p. 152). 
 
 I doubt not that Mr. Harrison knows vastly more 
 about history than I do ; in fact, he tells the public that 
 some of my friends and I have had no opportunity of 
 occupying ourselves with that subject. I do not like to 
 contradict any statement which Mr. Harrison makes on 
 his own authority ; only, if I may be true to my agnostic 
 principles, I humbly ask how he has obtained assurance 
 on this head. I do not profess to know anything about 
 the range of Mr. Harrison's studies ; but as he has 
 thought it fitting to start the subject, I may venture to 
 point out that, on the evidence adduced, it might be 
 equally permissible to draw the conclusion that Mr. 
 Harrison's absorbing labors as the pontifex maximus of 
 the positivist religion have not allowed him to acquire 
 that acquaintance with the methods and results of physi- 
 cal science, or with the history of philosophy, or of philo- 
 logical and historical criticism, which is essential to any 
 one who desires to obtain a right understanding of 
 agnosticism. Incompetence in philosophy, and in all 
 branches of science except mathematics, is the well- 
 known mental characteristic of the founder of Positivism. 
 Faithfulness in disciples is an admirable quality in itself ; 
 the pity is that it not unfrequently leads to the imitation 
 of the weaknesses as well as of the strength of the mas- 
 ter. It is only such over-faithfulness which can account 
 for a " strong mind really saturated with the historical 
 sense" (p. 153) exhibiting the extraordinary forgetful- 
 3 
 
50 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ness of the historical fact of the existence of David Hume 
 implied by the assertion that 
 
 it would be difficult to name a single known agnostic who has given 
 to history anything like the amount of thought and study which he 
 brings to a knowledge of the physical world (p. 153). 
 
 Whoso calls to mind, what I may venture to term, the 
 bright side of Christianity ; that ideal of manhood, with 
 its strength and its patience ; its justice and its pity for 
 human frailty ; its helpfulness, to the extremity of self- 
 sacrifice ; its ethical purity and nobility ; which apostles 
 have pictured, in which armies of martyrs have placed 
 their unshakable faith, and whence obscure men and 
 women, like Catherine of Sienna and John Knox, have 
 derived the courage to rebuke popes and kings, is not 
 likely to underrate the importance of the Christian faith 
 as a factor in human history, or to doubt that if that faith 
 should prove to be incompatible with our knowledge, or 
 necessary want of knowledge, some other hypostasis of 
 men's hopes, genuine enough and worthy enough to re- 
 place it, will arise. But that the incongruous mixture of 
 bad science with eviscerated papistry, out of which Comte 
 manufactured the positivist religion, will be the heir of 
 the Christian ages, I have too much respect for the hu- 
 manity of the future to believe. Charles II told his 
 brother, "They will not kill me, James, to make you 
 king." And if critical science is remorselessly destroying 
 the historical foundations of the noblest ideal of human- 
 ity which mankind have yet worshiped, it is little likely 
 to permit the pitiful reality to climb into the vacant 
 shrine. 
 
 That a man should determine to devote himself to 
 the service of humanity — including intellectual and moral 
 self -culture under that name ; that this should be, in the 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 51 
 
 proper sense of the word, his religion — is not only an in- 
 telligible, but, I think, a laudable resolution. And I am 
 greatly disposed to believe that it is the only religion 
 which will prove itself to be unassailably acceptable so 
 long as the human race endures. But when the positivist 
 asks me to worship " Humanity " — that is to say, to adore 
 the generalized conception of men as they ever have been 
 and probably ever will be — I must reply that I could just 
 as soon bow down and worship the generalized conception 
 of a " wilderness of apes." Surely we are not going back 
 to the days of paganism, when individual men were dei- 
 fied, and the hard good sense of a dying Vespasian could 
 prompt the bitter jest, " Utputo Deusfio." No divinity 
 doth hedge a modern man, be he even a sovereign ruler. 
 Nor is there any one, except a municipal magistrate, who 
 is officially declared worshipful. But if there is no spark 
 of worship-worthy divinity in the individual twigs of hu- 
 manity, whence comes that godlike splendor which the 
 Moses of positivism fondly imagines to pervade the whole 
 bush? 
 
 I know no study which is so unutterably saddening as 
 that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the 
 annals of history. Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages 
 man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong 
 upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the 
 other brutes ; a blind prey to impulses, which as often as 
 not lead him to destruction ; a victim to endless illusions, 
 which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, 
 and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle. He 
 attains a certain degree of physical comfort, and develops 
 a more or less workable theory of life, in such favorable 
 situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or of Egypt, and 
 then, for thousands and thousands of years, struggles with 
 
52 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 varying fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, blood- 
 shed, and misery, to maintain himself at this point against 
 the greed and the ambition of his fellow-men. He makes 
 a point of killing and otherwise persecuting all those who 
 first try to get him to move on ; and when he has moved 
 on a step, foolishly confers post-mortem deification on his 
 victims. He exactly repeats the process with all who 
 want to move a step yet farther. And the best men of 
 the best epochs are simply those who make the fewest 
 blunders and commit the fewest sins. 
 
 That one should rejoice in the good man ; forgive the 
 bad man ; and pity and help all men to the best of one's 
 ability, is surely indisputable. It is the glory of Judaism 
 and of Christianity to have proclaimed this truth, through 
 all their aberrations. But the worship of a God who 
 needs forgiveness and help, and deserves pity every hour 
 of his existence, is no better than that of any other volun- 
 tarily selected fetich. The Emperor Julian's project was 
 hopeful, in comparison with the prospects of the new an- 
 thropolatry. 
 
 When the historian of religion in the twentieth cent- 
 ury is writing about the nineteenth, I foresee he will say 
 something of this kind : 
 
 The most curious and instructive events in the relig- 
 ious history of the preceding century are the rise and 
 progress of two new sects, called Mormons and Positiv- 
 ists. To the student who has carefully considered these 
 remarkable phenomena nothing in the records of religious 
 self-delusion can appear improbable. 
 
 The Mormons arose in the midst of the great Re- 
 public, which, though comparatively insignificant at that 
 time, in territory as in the number of its citizens, was (as 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 53 
 
 we know from the fragments of the speeches of its ora- 
 tors which have come down to us) no less remarkable for 
 the native intelligence of its population, than for the wide 
 extent of their information, owing to the activity of their 
 publishers in diffusing all that they could invent, beg, 
 borrow, or steal. Nor were they less noted for their per- 
 fect freedom from all restraints in thought or speech or 
 deed ; except, to be sure, the beneficent and wise influ- 
 ence of the majority exerted, in case of need, through an 
 institution known as " tarring and feathering," the exact 
 nature of which is now disputed. 
 
 There is a complete consensus of testimony that the 
 founder of Mormonism, one Joseph Smith, was a low- 
 minded, ignorant scamp, and that he stole the " Script- 
 ures" which he propounded; not being clever enough 
 to forge even such contemptible stuff as they contain. 
 Nevertheless he must have been a man of some force 
 of character, for a considerable number of disciples soon 
 gathered about him. In spite of repeated outbursts of 
 popular hatred and violence — during one of which perse- 
 cutions, Smith was brutally murdered — the Mormon body 
 steadily increased, and became a flourishing community. 
 But the Mormon practices being objectionable to the ma- 
 jority, they were, more than once, without any pretense 
 of law, but by force of riot, arson, and murder, driven 
 away from the land they had occupied. Harried by these 
 persecutions, the Mormon body eventually committed 
 itself to the tender mercies of a desert as barren as that 
 of Sinai; and, after terrible sufferings and privations, 
 reached the oasis of Utah. Here it grew and flourished, 
 sending out missionaries to, and receiving converts from, 
 all parts of Europe, sometimes to the number of 10,000 
 in a year; until in 1880, the rich and flourishing com- 
 
54: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 munity numbered 110,000 souls in Utah alone, while 
 there were probably 30,000 or 40,000 scattered abroad 
 elsewhere. In the whole history of religions there is no 
 more remarkable example of the power of faith ; and, in 
 this case, the founder of that faith was indubitably a most 
 despicable creature. It is interesting to observe that the 
 course taken by the great Republic and its citizens runs 
 exactly parallel with that taken by the Roman Empire 
 and its citizens toward the early Christians, except that 
 the Romans had a certain ]egal excuse for their acts of 
 violence, inasmuch as the Christian " sodalitia " were not 
 licensed, and consequently were, ipso facto, illegal assem- 
 blages. Until, in the latter part of the nineteenth cent- 
 ury, the United States Legislature decreed the illegality 
 of polygamy, the Mormons were wholly within the law. 
 Nothing can present a greater contrast to all this than 
 the history of the Positivists. This sect arose much about 
 the same time as that of the Mormons, in the upper and 
 most instructed stratum of the quick-witted, skeptical 
 population of Paris. The founder, Auguste Comte, was 
 a teacher of mathematics, but of no eminence in that de- 
 partment of knowledge, and with nothing but an ama- 
 teur's acquaintance with physical, chemical, and biological 
 science. His works are repulsive on account of the dull 
 diffuseness of their style, and a certain air, as of a superior 
 person, which characterizes them ; but, nevertheless, they 
 contain good things here and there. It would take too 
 much space to reproduce in detail a system which pro- 
 poses to regulate all human life by the promulgation of a 
 gentile Leviticus. Suffice it to say that M. Comte may 
 be described as a syncretic, who, like the gnostics of early 
 Church history, attempted to combine the substance of 
 imperfectly comprehended contemporary science with the 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 55 
 
 form of Roman Christianity. It may be that this is the 
 reason why his disciples were so very angry with some 
 obscure people called Agnostics, whose views, if we may 
 judge by the accounts left in the works of a great positiv- 
 ist controversial writer, were very absurd. 
 
 To put the matter briefly, M. Comte, finding Chris- 
 tianity aud Science at daggers drawn, seems to have said 
 to Science : " You find Christianity rotten at the core, do 
 you ? Well, I will scoop out the inside of it." And to 
 Romanism : " You find Science mere dry light — cold and 
 bare. Well, I will put your shell over it, and so, as 
 schoolboys make a specter out of a turnip and a tallow 
 candle, behold the new religion of Humanity complete!" 
 
 Unfortunately, neither the Romanists nor the people 
 who were something more than amateurs in science could 
 be got to worship M. Comte's new idol properly. In the 
 native country of Positivism, one distinguished man of 
 letters and one of science, for a time, helped to make up 
 a roomful of the faithful, but their love soon grew cold. 
 In England, on the other hand, there appears to be little 
 doubt that, in the ninth decade of the century, the mul- 
 titude of disciples reached the grand total of several 
 score. They had the advantage of the advocacy of one or 
 two most eloquent and learned apostles, and, at any rate, 
 the sympathy of several persons of light and leading — 
 and, if they were not seen, they were heard all over the 
 world. On the other hand, as a sect, they labored under 
 the prodigious disadvantage of being refined, estimable 
 people, living in the midst of the worn-out civilization of 
 the Old World ; where any one who had tried to perse- 
 cute them, as the Mormons were persecuted, would have 
 been instantly hanged. But the majority never dreamed 
 of persecuting them ; on the contrary, they were rather 
 
56 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 given to scold, and otherwise try the patience of the ma- 
 jority. 
 
 The history of these sects in the closing years of the 
 century is highly instructive. Mormonism .... 
 
 But I find I have suddenly slipped off Mr. Harrison's 
 tripod, which I had borrowed for the occasion. The fact 
 is, I am not equal to the prophetical business, and ought 
 not to have undertaken it. 
 
III. 
 AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HUXLEY. 
 By HENRY WACE, D. D. 
 
 It would hardly be reasonable to complain of Prof. 
 Huxley's delay in replying to the paper on " Agnosti- 
 cism " which I read five months ago, when, at the urgent 
 request of an old friend, I reluctantly consented to ad- 
 dress the Church Congress at Manchester. I am obliged 
 to him for doing it the honor to bring it to the notice of 
 a wider circle than that to which it was directly addressed ; 
 and I fear that, for reasons which have been the occasion 
 of universal regret, he may not have been equal to liter- 
 ary effort. But, at the same time, it is impossible not to 
 notice that a writer is at a great advantage in attacking a 
 fugitive essay a quarter of a year after it was made pub- 
 lic. Such a lapse of time ought, indeed, to enable him 
 to apprehend distinctly the argument with which he is 
 dealing ; and it might, at least, secure him from any such 
 inaccuracy in quotation as greater haste might excuse. 
 But if either his idiosyncrasy, or his sense of assured su- 
 periority, should lead him to pay no real attention to the 
 argument he is attacking, or should betray him into ma- 
 terial misquotation, he may at least be sure that scarcely 
 any of his readers will care to refer to the original paper, 
 
58 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 or will have the opportunity of doing so. I can scarcely 
 hope that Prof. Huxley's obliging reference to the " Offi- 
 cial Report of the Church Congress " will induce many 
 of those who are influenced by his answer to my paper to 
 purchase that interesting volume, though they would be 
 well repaid by some of its other contents ; and I can 
 hardly rely on their spending even twopence upon the 
 reprint of the paper, published by the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge. I have therefore felt 
 obliged to ask the editor of this review to be kind enough 
 to admit to his pages a brief restatement of the position 
 which Prof. Huxley has assailed, with such notice of his 
 arguments as is practicable within the comparatively brief 
 space which can be afforded me. I could not, indeed, 
 amid the pressing claims of a college like this in term 
 time, besides the chairmanship of a hospital, a preacher- 
 ship, and other duties, attempt any reply which would 
 deal as thoroughly as could be wished with an article of 
 so much skill and finish. But it is a matter of justice to 
 my cause and to myself to remove at once the unscientific 
 and prejudiced representation of the case which Prof. 
 Huxley has put forward ; and fortunately there will be 
 need of no elaborate argument for this purpose. There 
 is no occasion to go beyond Prof. Huxley's own article 
 and the language of my paper to exhibit his entire 
 misapprehension of the point in dispute; while I am 
 much more than content to rely for the invalidation of 
 his own contentions upon the authorities he himself 
 quotes. 
 
 What, then, is the position with which Prof. Huxley 
 finds fault ? He is good enough to say that what he calls 
 my "description" of an agnostic may for the present 
 pass, so that we are so far, at starting, on common ground. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 59 
 
 The actual description of an agnostic, which is given in 
 my paper, is indeed distinct from the words he quotes, 
 and is taken from an authoritative source. But what I 
 have said is that, as an escape from such an article of 
 Christian belief as that we have a Father in heaven, or 
 that Jesus Christ is the Judge of quick and dead, and 
 will hereafter return to judge the world, an agnostic 
 urges that " he has no means of a scientific knowledge of 
 the unseen world or of the future " ; and I maintain that 
 this plea is irrelevant. Christians do not presume to say 
 that they have a scientific knowledge of such articles of 
 their creed. They say that they believe them, and they 
 believe them mainly on the assurances of Jesus Christ. 
 Consequently their characteristic difference from an ag- 
 nostic consists in the fact that they believe those assur- 
 ances, and that he does not. Prof. Huxley's observation, 
 " Are there then any Christians who say that they know 
 nothing about the unseen world and the future ? I was 
 ignorant of the fact, but I am ready to accept it on the 
 authority of a professed theologian," is either a quibble, 
 or one of many indications that he does not recognize the 
 point at issue. I am speaking, as the sentence shows, of 
 scientific knowledge — knowledge which can be obtained 
 by our own reason and observation alone — and no one 
 with Prof. Huxley's learning is justified in being igno- 
 rant that it is not upon such knowledge, but upon super- 
 natural revelation, that Christian belief rests. However, 
 as he goes on to say, my view of " the real state of the 
 case is that the agnostic ' does not believe the authority ' 
 on which ' these things ' are stated, which authority is 
 Jesus Christ. He is simply an old-fashioned i infidel ' 
 who is afraid to own to his right name." The argument 
 has nothing to do with his motive, whether it is being 
 
60 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 afraid or not. It only concerns the fact that that by which 
 he is distinctively separated from the Christian is that he 
 does not believe the assurances of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Prof. Huxley thinks there is " an attractive simplicity 
 about this solution of the problem " — he means, of course, 
 this statement of the case — " and it has that advantage of 
 being somewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which 
 is so dear to the less refined sort of controversialist." I 
 think Prof. Huxley must have forgotten himself and his 
 own feelings in this observation. There can be no ques- 
 tion, of course, of his belonging himself to the more re- 
 fined sort of controversialist ; but he has a characteristic 
 fancy for solutions of problems, or statements of cases, 
 which have the "advantage of being somewhat offensive 
 to the persons attacked." Without taking this particular 
 phrase into account, it certainly has " the advantage of 
 being offensive to the persons attacked " that Prof. Hux- 
 ley should speak in this article of u the pestilent doctrine 
 on which all the churches have insisted, the honest dis- 
 belief " — the word honest is not a misquotation — " honest 
 disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a 
 moral offense, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving 
 and involving the same future retribution as murder or 
 robbery," or that he should say, " Trip in morals or in 
 doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance 
 or retractation, or fail to get properly baptized before 
 you die, and a plebiscite of the Christians of Europe, if 
 they were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlast- 
 ing damnation by an immense majority." We have for- 
 tunately nothing to do in this argument with plebiscites ; 
 and as statements of authoritative Christian teaching, 
 the least that can be said of these allegations is that they 
 are offensive exaggerations. It had "the advantage" 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 61 
 
 again, of being " offensive to the persons attacked," when 
 Prof. Huxley, in an article in this review on " Science 
 and the Bishops," in November, 1887, said that " scien- 
 tific ethics can and does declare that the profession of 
 belief " in such narratives as that of the devils entering a 
 herd of swine, or of the fig-tree that was blasted for bear- 
 ing no figs, upon the evidence on which multitudes of 
 Christians believe it, " is immoral " ; and the observation 
 which followed, that " theological apologists would do 
 well to consider the fact that, in the matter of intellectual 
 veracity, Science is already a long way ahead of the 
 churches," has the same " advantage." I repeat that I 
 can not but treat Prof. Huxley as an example of the 
 more refined sort of controversialist ; it must be supposed, 
 therefore, that when he speaks of observations or insinua- 
 tions which are somewhat offensive to the " persons at- 
 tacked " being dear to the other sort of controversialist, he 
 is unconscious of his own methods of controversy — or, 
 shall I say, his own temptations ? 
 
 But I desire as far as possible to avoid any rivalry 
 with Prof. Huxley in these refinements — more or less — 
 of controversy ; and am, in fact, forced by pressure both 
 of space and of time to keep as rigidly as possible to the 
 points directly at issue. He proceeds to restate the case 
 as follows : " The agnostic says, ' I can not find good 
 evidence that so and so is true.' i Ah,' says his adversary, 
 seizing his opportunity, ' then you declare that Jesus Christ 
 was untruthful, for he said so and so ' — a very telling 
 method of rousing prejudice." Now that superior scien- 
 tific veracity to which, as we have seen, Prof. Huxley 
 lays claim, should have prevented him putting such vulgar 
 words into my mouth. There is not a word in my paper 
 to charge agnostics with declaring that Jesus Christ was 
 
62 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 " untruthful." I believe it impossible in these days for 
 any man who claims attention — I might say, for any man 
 — to declare our Lord untruthful. What I said, and what 
 I repeat, is that the position of an agnostic involves the 
 conclusion that Jesus Christ was under an " illusion " in 
 respect to the deepest beliefs of his life and teaching. 
 The words of my paper are, "An agnosticism which 
 knows nothing of the relation of man to God must not 
 only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching, 
 but must deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in 
 which he lived and died." The point is this — that there 
 can, at least, be no reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ 
 lived, and taught, and died, in the belief of certain great 
 principles respecting the existence of God, our relation to 
 God, and his own relation to us, which an agnostic says 
 are beyond the possibilities of human knowledge ; and of 
 course an agnostic regards Jesus Christ as a man. If so, 
 he must necessarily regard Jesus Christ as mistaken, since 
 the notion of his being untruthful is a supposition which 
 I could not conceive being suggested. The question I 
 have put is not, as Prof. Huxley represents, what is the 
 most unpleasant alternative to belief in the primary 
 truths of the Christian religion, but what is the least un- 
 pleasant ; and all I have maintained is that the least un- 
 pleasant alternative necessarily involved is, that Jesus 
 Christ was under an illusion in his most vital convictions. 
 I content myself with thus rectifying the state of the 
 case, without making the comments which I think would 
 be justified on such a crude misrepresentation of my ar- 
 gument. But Prof. Huxley goes on to observe that " the 
 value of the evidence as to what Jesus may have said and 
 done, and as to the exact nature and scope of his author- 
 ity, is just that which the agnostic finds it most difficult 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 63 
 
 to determine." Undoubtedly, that is a primary question ; 
 but who would suppose from Prof. Huxley's statement of 
 the case that the argument of the paper he is attacking 
 proceeded to deal with this very point, and that he has 
 totally ignored the chief consideration it alleged ? Almost 
 immediately after the words Prof. Huxley has quoted, 
 the following passage occurs, which I must needs transfer 
 to these pages, as containing the central point of the ar- 
 gument : " It may be asked how far we can rely on the 
 accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these sub- 
 jects. Now it is unnecessary for the general argument 
 before us to enter on those questions respecting the 
 authenticity of the gospel narratives, which ought to be 
 regarded as settled by M. Kenan's practical surrender of 
 the adverse case. Apart from all disputed points of 
 criticism, no one practically doubts that our Lord lived, 
 and that lie died on the cross, in the most intense sense of 
 filial relation to his Father in heaven, and that he bore 
 testimony to that Father's providence, love, and grace 
 toward mankind. The Lord's Prayer affords sufficient 
 evidence upon these points. Lf the Sermon on the Mount 
 alone be added, the whole unseen world, of which the ag- 
 nostic refuses to know anything, stands unveiled before 
 us. There you see revealed the divine Father and Cre- 
 ator of all things, in personal relation to his creatures, 
 hearing their prayers, witnessing their actions, caring 
 for them and rewarding them. There you hear of a 
 future judgment administered by Christ himself, and 
 of a heaven to be hereafter revealed, in which those who 
 live as the children of that Father, and who suffer in the 
 cause and for the sake of Christ himself, will be abun- 
 dantly rewarded. If Jesus Christ preached that ser- 
 mon, made those promises, and taught that prayer, then 
 
64 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 any one who says that we know nothing of God, or of a 
 future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does not 
 believe Jesus Christ? 
 
 Prof. Huxley has not one word to say upon this argu- 
 ment, though the whole case is involved in it. Let us 
 take as an example the illustration he proceeds to give. 
 " If," he says, " I venture to doubt that the Duke of 
 Wellington gave the command, ' Up, Guards, and at 'em ! ' 
 at Waterloo, I do not think that even Dr. Wace would 
 accuse me of disbelieving the duke." Certainly not. 
 But if Prof. Huxley were to maintain that the pursuit of 
 glory was the true motive of the soldier, and that it was 
 an illusion to suppose that simple devotion to duty could 
 be the supreme guide of military life, I should certainly 
 charge him with contradicting the duke's teaching and 
 disregarding his authority and example. A hundred 
 stories like that of " Up, Guards, and at 'em ! " might be 
 doubted, or positively disproved, and it would still remain 
 a fact beyond all reasonable doubt that the Duke of Wel- 
 lington was essentially characterized by the sternest and 
 most devoted sense of duty, and that he had inculcated 
 duty as the very watchword of a soldier ; and even Prof. 
 Huxley would not suggest that Lord Tennyson's ode, 
 which has embodied this characteristic in immortal verse, 
 was an unfounded poetical romance. 
 
 The main question at issue, in a word, is one which 
 Prof. Huxley has chosen to leave entirely on one side — 
 whether, namely, allowing for the utmost uncertainty on 
 other points of the criticism to which he appeals, there is 
 any reasonable doubt that the Lord's Prayer and the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount afford a true account of our Lord's es- 
 sential belief and cardinal teaching. If they do — then I 
 am not now contending that they involve the whole of 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 65 
 
 the Christian creed ; I am not arguing, as Prof. Huxley 
 would represent, that he ought for that reason alone to be 
 a Christian— I simply represent that, as an agnostic, he 
 must regard those beliefs and that teaching as mistaken — 
 the result of an illusion, to say the least. I am not going, 
 therefore, to follow Prof. Huxley's example and go down 
 a steep place with the Gadarene swine into a sea of un- 
 certainties and possibilities, and stake the whole case of 
 Christian belief as against agnosticism upon one of the 
 most difficult and mysterious narratives in the New Tes- 
 tament. I will state my position on that question pres- 
 ently. But I am first and chiefly concerned to point out 
 that Prof. Huxley has skillfully evaded the very point 
 and edge of the argument he had to meet. Let him raise 
 what difficulties he pleases, with the help of his favorite 
 critics, about the Gadarene swine, or even about all the 
 stories of demoniacs. He will find that his critics — and 
 even critics more rationalistic than they — fail him when 
 it comes to the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and, I will add, the story of the Passion. He will 
 find, or rather he must have found, that the very critics 
 he relies upon recognize that in the Sermon on the Mount 
 and the Lord's Prayer, allowing for variations in form and 
 order, the substance of our Lord's essential teaching is 
 preserved. On a point which, until Prof. Huxley shows 
 cause to the contrary, can hardly want argument, the 
 judgment of the most recent of his witnesses may suffice 
 — Prof. Reuss, of Strasburg. In Prof. Huxley's article 
 on the " Evolution of Theology " in the number of this 
 review for March, 1886, he says, "As Eeuss appears to 
 me to be one of the most learned, acute, and fair-minded 
 of those whose works I have studied, I have made most 
 use of the commentary and dissertations in his splendid 
 
66 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 French edition of the Bible." What, then, is the opin- 
 ion of the critic for whom Prof. Huxley has this regard ? 
 In the volume of his work which treats of the first three 
 Gospels, Reuss says at page 191-192, " If anywhere the 
 tradition which has preserved to us the reminiscences of 
 the life of Jesus upon earth carries with it certainty and 
 the evidence of its fidelity, it is here " ; and again : " In 
 short, it must be acknowledged that the redactor, in thus 
 concentrating the substance of the moral teaching of the 
 Lord, has rendered a real service to the religious study of 
 this portion of the tradition, and the reserves which his- 
 torical criticism has a right to make with respect to the 
 form will in no way diminish this advantage." It will 
 be observed that Prof. Reuss thinks, as many good critics 
 have thought, that the Sermon on the Mount combines 
 various distinct utterances of our Lord, but he none the 
 less recognizes that it embodies an unquestionable account 
 of the substance of our Lord's teaching. 
 
 But it is surely superfluous to argue either this par- 
 ticular point, or the main conclusion which I have founded 
 on it. Can there be any doubt whatever, in the mind of 
 any reasonable man, that Jesus Christ had beliefs respect- 
 ing God which an agnostic alleges there is no sufficient 
 ground for ? We know something at all events of what 
 his disciples taught; we have authentic original docu- 
 ments, unquestioned by any of Prof. Huxley's authori- 
 ties, as to what St. Paul taught and believed, and of what 
 he taught and believed respecting his Master's teaching ; 
 and the central point of this teaching is a direct assertion 
 of knowledge and revelation as against the very agnosti- 
 cism from which Prof. Huxley manufactured that desig- 
 nation. " As I passed by," said St. Paul at Athens, " I 
 found an altar with this inscription : ' To the unknown 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 67 
 
 God.' Whom therefore ye ignorantly — or in agnosticism 
 — worship, Him I declare unto you." An agnostic with- 
 holds his assent from this primary article of the Christian 
 creed ; and though Prof. Huxley, in spite of the lack of 
 information he alleges respecting early Christian teach- 
 ing, knows enough on the subject to have a firm belief 
 " that the Nazarenes, say of the year 40," headed by 
 James, would have stoned any one who propounded the 
 Mcene Creed to them, he will hardly contend that they 
 denied that article, or doubted that Jesus Christ believed 
 it. Let us again listen to the authority to whom Prof. 
 Huxley himself refers. Reuss says at page 4 of the work 
 already quoted : 
 
 Historical literature in the primitive church attaches itself in the 
 most immediate manner to the reminiscences collected hy the apos- 
 tles and their friends, directly after their separation from their Mas- 
 ter. The need of such a return to the past arose naturally from the 
 profound impression which had been made upon them by the teach- 
 ing, and still more by the individuality itself of Jesus, and on which 
 both their hopes for the future and their convictions were founded. 
 ... It is in these facts, in this continuity of a tradition which could 
 not but go back to the very morrow of the tragic scene of Golgotha 
 that we have a strong guarantee for its authenticity. . . . We have 
 direct historical proof that the thread of tradition was not inter- 
 rupted. Not only does one of our evangelists furnish this truth in 
 formal terms (Luke i, 2) ; but in many other places besides we per- 
 ceive the idea, or the point of view, that all which the apostles 
 know, think, and teach, is at bottom and essentially a reminiscence 
 — a reflection of what they have seen and learned at another time, 
 a reproduction of lessons and impressions received. 
 
 Now let it be allowed for argument's sake that the 
 belief and teaching of the apostles are distinct from those 
 of subsequent Christianity, yet it is surely a mere para- 
 dox to maintain that they did not assert, as taught by 
 their Master, truths which an agnostic denies. They 
 
68 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 certainly spoke, as Paul did, of the love of God ; they 
 certainly spoke, as Paul did, of Jesus having been raised 
 from the dead by God the Father (Gal. i, 1) ; they cer- 
 tainly spoke, as Paul did, of Jesus Christ returning to 
 judge the world; they certainly spoke, as Paul did, of 
 " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " (2 Cor. 
 xi, 31). That they could have done this without Jesus 
 Christ having taught God's love, or having said that God 
 was his Father, or having declared that he would judge 
 the world, is a supposition which will certainly be re- 
 garded by an overwhelming majority of reasonable men 
 as a mere paradox ; and I can not conceive, until he says 
 so, that Prof. Huxley would maintain it. But if so, then 
 all Prof. Huxley's argumentation about the Gadarene 
 swine is mere irrelevance to the argument he undertakes 
 to answer. The Gospels might be obliterated as evidence 
 to-morrow, and it would remain indisputable that Jesus 
 Christ taught certain truths respecting God, and man's 
 relation to God, from which an agnostic withholds his 
 assent. If so, he does not believe Jesus Christ's teach- 
 ing ; he is so far an unbeliever, and " unbeliever," Dr. 
 Johnson says, is an equivalent of " infidel." 
 
 This consideration will indicate another irrelevance in 
 Prof. Huxley's argument. He asks for a definition of 
 what a Christian is, before he will allow that he can be 
 justly called an infidel. But without being able to give 
 an accurate definition of a crayfish, which perhaps only 
 Prof. Huxley could do, I may be very well able to say 
 that some creatures are not crayfish; and it is not neces- 
 sary to frame a definition of a Christian in order to say 
 confidently that a person who does not believe the broad 
 and unquestionable elements of Christ's teachings and 
 convictions is not a Christian. " Infidel " or " unbe- 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 69 
 
 liever " is of course, as Prof. Huxley says, a relative and 
 not a positive term. He makes a great deal of play out 
 what he seems to suppose will be a very painful and sur- 
 prising consideration to myself, that to a Mohammedan 
 I am an infidel. Of course I am ; and I should never 
 expect a Mohammedan, if he were called upon, as I was, 
 to argue before an assembly of his own fellow-believers, 
 to call me anything else. Prof. Huxley is good enough 
 to imagine me in his company on a visit to the Hazar 
 Mosque at Cairo. When he entered that mosque with- 
 out due credentials, he suspects that, had he understood 
 Arabic, " dog of an infidel " would have been by no means 
 the most "unpleasant" of the epithets showered upon 
 him, before he could explain and apologize for the mis- 
 take. If, he says, " I had had the pleasure of Dr. "Wace's 
 company on that occasion, the undiscriminative followers 
 of the Prophet would, I am afraid, have made no differ- 
 ence between us ; not even if they had known that he 
 was the head of an orthodox Christian seminary." Prob- 
 ably not ; and I will add that I should have felt very 
 little confidence in any attempts which Prof. Huxley 
 might have made, in the style of his present article, to 
 protect me, by repudiating for himself the unpleasant 
 epithets which he deprecates. It would, I suspect, have 
 been of very little avail to attempt a subtle explanation, 
 to one of the learned mollahs of whom he speaks, that 
 he really did not mean to deny that there was one God, 
 but only that he did not know anything on the subject, 
 and that he desired to avoid expressing any opinion re- 
 specting the claims of Mohammed. It would be plain 
 to the learned mollah that Prof. Huxley did not believe 
 either of the articles of the Mohammedan creed — in other 
 words that, for all his fine distinctions, he was at bottom 
 
70 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 a downright infidel, such as I confessed myself, and that 
 there was an end of the matter. There is no fair way of 
 avoiding the plain matter of fact in either case. A Mo- 
 hammedan believes and asserts that there is no God but 
 God, and that Mohammed is the prophet of God. I 
 don't believe Mohammed. In the plain, blunt, sensible 
 phrase people used to use on such subjects I believe he 
 was a false prophet, and I am a downright infidel about 
 him. The Christian creed might almost be summed up 
 in the assertion that there is one, and but one God, and 
 that Jesus Christ is his prophet; and whoever denies 
 that creed says that he does not believe Jesus Christ, by 
 whom it was undoubtedly asserted. It is better to look 
 facts in the face, especially from a scientific point of view. 
 Whether Prof. Huxley is justified in his denial of that 
 creed is a further question, which demands separate con- 
 sideration, but which was not, and is not now, at issue. 
 All I say is that his position involves that disbelief or 
 infidelity, and that this is a responsibility which must be 
 faced by agnosticism. 
 
 But I am forced to conclude that Prof. Huxley can 
 not have taken the pains to understand the point I raised, 
 not only by the irrelevance of his argument on these con- 
 siderations, but by a misquotation which the superior ac- 
 curacy of a man of science ought to have rendered impos- 
 sible. Twice over in the article he quotes me as saying 
 that " it is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a 
 man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in 
 Jesus Christ." As he winds up his attack upon my pa- 
 per by bringing against this statement his rather favorite 
 charge of " immorality " — and even " most profound im- 
 morality" — he was the more bound to accuracy in his 
 quotation of my words. But neither in the official re- 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 71 
 
 port of the congress to which he refers, nor in any report 
 that I have seen, is this the statement attributed to me. 
 What I said, and what I meant to say, was that it ought 
 to be an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly 
 " that he does not believe Jesus Christ." By inserting 
 the little word "in," Prof. Huxley has, by an unconscious 
 ingenuity, shifted the import of the statement. He goes 
 on to denounce " the pestilent doctrine on which all the 
 churches have insisted, that honest disbelief in their more 
 or less astonishing creeds is a moral offense, indeed a sin 
 of the deepest dye." * His interpretation exhibits, in 
 fact, the idea in his own mind, which he has doubtless 
 conveyed to his readers, that I said it ought to be un- 
 pleasant to a man to have to say that he does not believe 
 in the Christian creed. I certainly think it ought, for 
 reasons I will mention ; but that is not what I said. I 
 spoke, deliberately, not of the Christian creed as a whole, 
 but of Jesus Christ as a person, and regarded as a witness 
 to certain primary truths which an agnostic will not ac- 
 knowledge. It was a personal consideration to which I 
 appealed, and not a dogmatic one ; and I am sorry, for 
 that reason, that Prof. Huxley will not allow me to leave 
 it in the reserve with which I hoped it had been suffi- 
 ciently indicated. 1 said that " no criticism worth men- 
 tioning doubts the story of the Passion ; and that story 
 involves the most solemn attestation, again and again, of 
 truths of which an agnostic coolly says he knows nothing. 
 An agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of 
 man to God must not only refuse belief to our Lord's 
 most undoubted teaching, but must deny the reality of 
 the spiritual convictions in which he lived and died. It 
 must declare that his most intimate, most intense beliefs, 
 
 * Pasre 39. 
 
72 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and his dying aspirations were an illusion. Is that sup- 
 position tolerable ? " I do not think this deserves to be 
 called a a proposition of the most profoundly immoral 
 character." I think it ought to be unpleasant, and I am 
 sure it always will be unpleasant, for a man to listen to 
 the Saviour on the cross uttering such words as " Father, 
 into thy hands I commend my spirit," and to say that 
 they are not to be trusted as revealing a real relation be- 
 tween the Saviour and God. In spite of all doubts as to 
 the accuracy of the Gospels, Jesus Christ — I trust I may 
 be forgiven, under the stress of controversy, for mention- 
 ing his sacred name in this too familiar manner — is a 
 tender and sacred figure to all thoughtful minds, and it 
 is, it ought to be, and it always will be, a very painful 
 thing, to say that he lived and died under a mistake in 
 respect to the words which were first and last on his lips. 
 I think, as I have admitted, that it should be unpleasant 
 for a man who has as much appreciation of Christianity, 
 and of its work in the world, as Prof. Huxley sometimes 
 shows, to have to say that its belief was founded on no 
 objective reality. The unpleasantness, however, of deny- 
 ing one system of thought may be balanced by the pleas- 
 antness, as Prof. Huxley suggests, of asserting another 
 and a better one. But nothing, to all time, can do away 
 with the unpleasantness, not only of repudiating sympa- 
 thy with the most sacred figure of humanity in his deep- 
 est beliefs and feetings, but of pronouncing him under an 
 illusion in his last agony. If it be the truth, let it by all 
 means be said ; but if we are to talk of " immorality " in 
 such matters, I think there must be a lack of moral sensi- 
 bility in any man who could say it without pain. 
 
 The plain fact is that this misquotation would have 
 been as impossible as a good deal else of Prof. Huxley's 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 73 
 
 argument, had he, in any degree, appreciated the real 
 strength of the hold which Christianity has over men's 
 hearts and minds. The strength of the Christian Church, 
 in spite of its faults, errors, and omissions, is not in its 
 creed, but in its Lord and Master. In spite of all the 
 critics, the Gospels have conveyed to the minds of mill- 
 ions of men a living image of Christ. They see him 
 there ; they hear his voice ; they listen, and they believe 
 him. It is not so much that they accept certain doctrines 
 as taught by him, as that they accept him, himself, as 
 their Lord and their God. The sacred fire of trust in 
 him descended upon the apostles, and has from them 
 been handed on from generation to generation. It is 
 with that living personal figure that agnosticism has to 
 deal ; and as long as the Gospels practically produce the 
 effect of making that figure a reality to human hearts, so 
 long will the Christian faith, and the Christian Church, 
 in their main characteristics, be vital and permanent 
 forces in the world. Prof. Huxley tells us, in a melan- 
 choly passage, that he can not define " the grand figure 
 of Jesus." Who shall dare to " define " it ? But saints 
 have both written and lived an imitatio Christij and men 
 and women can feel and know what they can not define. 
 Prof. Huxley, it would seem, would have us all wait 
 coolly until we have solved all critical difficulties, before 
 acting on such a belief. "Because," he says, "we are 
 often obliged, by the pressure of events, to act on very 
 bad evidence, it does not follow that it is proper to act on 
 such evidence when the pressure is absent." Certainly 
 not; but it is strange ignorance of human nature for 
 Prof. Huxley to imagine that there is no " pressure " in 
 this matter. It was a voice which understood the human 
 heart better which said, " Come unto me, all ye that labor 
 4 
 
74: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest " ; and the 
 attraction of that voice outweighs many a critical difficulty 
 under the pressure of the burdens and the sins of life. 
 
 Prof. Huxley, indeed, admits, in one sentence of his 
 article, the force of this influence on individuals. 
 
 If (he says) a man can find a friend, the hypostasis of all his 
 hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in the pages of any, or of all, 
 of the Gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. Who shall, or 
 can, forbid him ? But let him not delude himself with the notion 
 that his faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he 
 trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the 
 methods of science, as applied to history and to literature, and it 
 amounts at present to very little. 
 
 Well, a single man's belief in an ideal may be very 
 little evidence of its objective reality. But the conviction 
 of millions of men, generation after generation, of the 
 veracity of the four evangelical witnesses, and of the hu- 
 man and divine reality of the figure they describe, has at 
 least something of the weight of the verdict of a jury. 
 Securus judicat orbis terrarum. Practically the figure 
 of Christ lives. The Gospels have created it ; and it 
 subsists as a personal fact in life, alike among believers 
 and unbelievers. Prof. Huxley himself, in spite of all 
 his skepticism, appears to have his own type of this char- 
 acter. The apologue of the woman taken in adultery 
 might, he says, "if internal evidence were an infallible 
 guide, well be affirmed to be a typical example of the 
 teachings of Jesus." Internal evidence may not be an in- 
 fallible guide ; but it certainly carries great weight, and 
 no one has relied more upon it in these questions than 
 the critics whom Prof. Huxley quotes. 
 
 But as I should be sorry to imitate Prof. Huxley, on 
 so momentous a subject, by evading the arguments and 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 75 
 
 facts he alleges, I will consider the question of external 
 evidence on which he dwells. I must repeat that the ar- 
 gument of my paper is independent of this controversy. 
 The fact that our Lord taught and believed what agnos- 
 tics ignore is not dependent on the criticism of the four 
 Gospels. In addition to the general evidence to which I 
 have alluded, there is a further consideration which Prof. 
 Huxley feels it necessary to mention, but which he evades 
 by an extraordinary inconsequence. He alleges that the 
 story of the Gadarene swine involves fabulous matter, 
 and that this discredits the trustworthiness of the whole 
 Gospel record. But he says : 
 
 At this point a very obvious objection arises and deserves full 
 and candid consideration. It may be said that critical skepticism 
 carried to the length suggested is historical pyrrhonism ; that if we 
 are to altogether discredit an ancient or a modern historian because 
 he has assumed fabulous matter to be true, it will be as well to give 
 up paying any attention to history. . . . Of course (he acknowledges) 
 this is perfectly true. I am afraid there is no man alive whose wit- 
 ness could be accepted, if the condition precedent were proof that 
 he had never invented and promulgated a myth. 
 
 The question, then, which Prof. Huxley himself 
 raises, and which he had to answer, was this : Why is the 
 general evidence of the Gospels, on the main facts of our 
 Lord's life and teaching, to be discredited, even if it be 
 true that they have invented or promulgated a myth about 
 the Gadarene swine ? What is his answer to that simple 
 and broad question ? Strange to say, absolutely none at 
 all ! He leaves this vital question without any answer, 
 and goes back to the Gadarene swine. The question he 
 raises is whether the supposed incredibility of the story 
 of the Gadarene swine involves the general untrustwor- 
 thiness of the story of the Gospels ; and his conclusion is 
 
76 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 that it involves the incredibility of the story of the Gada- 
 rene swine. A more complete evasion of his own ques- 
 tion it would be difficult to imagine. As Prof. Huxley 
 almost challenges me to state what I think of that story, 
 I have only to say that I fully believe it, and moreover 
 that Prof. Huxley, in this very article, has removed the 
 only consideration which would have been a serious ob- 
 stacle to my belief. If he were prepared to say, on his 
 high scientific authority, that the narrative involves a con- 
 tradiction of established scientific truth, I could not but 
 defer to such a decision, and I might be driven to con- 
 sider those possibilities of interpolation in the narrative, 
 which Prof. Huxley is good enough to suggest to all who 
 feel the improbability of the story too much for them. 
 But Prof. Huxley expressly says : 
 
 I admit I have no a priori objection to offer. . . . For anything 
 I can absolutely prove to the contrary, there may be spiritual things 
 capable of the same transmigration, with like effects. ... So I de- 
 clare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to show cause why these 
 transferable devils should not exist. 
 
 Yery well, then, as the highest science of the day is 
 unable to show cause against the possibility of the narra- 
 tive, and as I regard the Gospels as containing the evi- 
 dence of trustworthy persons who were contemporary 
 with the events narrated, and as their general veracity 
 carries to my mind the greatest possible weight, I accept 
 their statement in this as in other instances. Prof. Hux- 
 ley ventures " to doubt whether at this present moment 
 any Protestant theologian, who has a reputation to lose, 
 will say that he believes the Gadarene story." He will 
 judge whether I fall under his description ; but I repeat 
 that I believe it, and that he has removed the only objec- 
 tion to my believing it. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 77 
 
 However, to turn finally to the important fact of 
 external evidence. Prof. Huxley reiterates, again and 
 again, that the verdict of scientific criticism is decisive 
 against the supposition that we possess in the four Gos- 
 pels the authentic and contemporary evidence of known 
 writers. He repeats, " without the slightest fear of refu- 
 tation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are 
 the work of unknown writers." In particular, he chal- 
 lenges my allegation of "M. Kenan's practical surrender 
 of the adverse case " ; and he adds the following observa- 
 tions, to which I beg the reader's particular attention : 
 
 I thought (he says) I knew M. Kenan's works pretty well, but I 
 have contrived to miss this "practical " — (I wish Dr. Wace had de- 
 fined the scope of that useful adjective) — surrender. However, as 
 Dr. Wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Ke- 
 nan's writings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, 
 I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the 
 present, with remarking that if M. Renan were to retract and do 
 penance in Notre Dame to-morrow for any contributions to bib- 
 lical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results of 
 that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, 
 Keuss, and Yolkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected. 
 
 Let me begin then, by enlightening Prof. Huxley 
 about M. Kenan's surrender. I have the less difficulty in 
 doing so as the passages he has contrived to miss have 
 been collected by me already in a little tract on the " Au- 
 thenticity of the Gospels," * and in some lectures on the 
 " Gospel and its Witnesses " ; f and I shall take the lib- 
 erty, for convenience' sake, of repeating some of the ob- 
 servations there made. 
 
 I beg first to refer to the preface to M. Kenan's " Yie 
 de Jesus." $ There M. Kenan says : 
 
 * Religious Tract Society. f John Murray, 1883. 
 
 \ Fifteenth edition, p. xlix. 
 
78 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 As to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of St. Luke 
 is a regular composition, founded upon earlier documents. It is the 
 work of an author who chooses, curtails, combines. The author of 
 this Gospel is certainly the same as the author of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. Now, the author of the Acts seems to be a companion 
 of St. Paul — a character which accords completely with St. Luke. 
 I know that more than one objection may be opposed to this rea- 
 soning ; but one thing at all events is beyond doubt, namely, that 
 the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is a man who be- 
 longed to the second apostolic generation ; and this suffices for our 
 purpose. The date of this Gospel, moreover, may be determined 
 with sufficient precision by considerations drawn from the book 
 itself. The twenty-first chapter of St. Luke, which is inseparable 
 from the rest of the work, was certainly written after the siege of 
 Jerusalem, but not long after. We are, therefore, here on solid 
 ground, for we are dealing with a work proceeding entirely from the 
 same hand, and possessing the most complete unity. 
 
 It may be important to observe that this admission has 
 been supported by M. Kenan's further investigations, as 
 expressed in his subsequent volume on " The Apostles." 
 In the preface to that volume he discusses fully the nature 
 and value of the narrative contained in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and he pronounces the following decided opin- 
 ions as to the authorship of that book, and its connection 
 with the Gospel of St. Luke (page x sq.) : 
 
 One point which is beyond question is that the Acts are by the 
 same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of that Gos- 
 pel. One need not stop to prove this proposition, which has never 
 been seriously contested. The prefaces at the commencement of 
 each work, the dedication of each to Theophilus, the perfect resem- 
 blance of style and of ideas, furnish on this point abundant demon- 
 strations. 
 
 A second proposition, which has not the same certainty, but 
 which may, however, be regarded as extremely probable, is that the 
 author of the Acts is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him for a 
 considerable part of his travels. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 79 
 
 At a first glance, M. Renan observes, this proposition 
 appears indubitable, from the fact that the author, on so 
 many occasions, uses the pronoun " we," indicating that on 
 those occasions he was one of the apostolic band by whom 
 St. Paul was accompanied. " One may even be aston- 
 ished that a proposition apparently so evident should have 
 found persons to contest it." He notices, however, the 
 difficulties which have been raised on the point, and then 
 proceeds as follows (page 14) : 
 
 Must we be checked by these objections? I think not; and I 
 persist in believing that the person who finally prepared the Acts 
 is really the disciple of Paul, who says " we " in the last chapters. 
 All difficulties, however insoluble they may appear, ought to be, if not 
 dismissed, at least held in suspense, by an argument so decisive as 
 that which results from the use of this word " we." 
 
 He then observes that MSS. and tradition combine in 
 assigning the third Gospel to a certain Luke, and that it 
 is scarcely conceivable that a name in other respects ob- 
 scure should have been attributed to so important a work 
 for any other reason than that it was the name of the real 
 author. Luke, he says, had no place in tradition, in 
 legend, or in history, when these two treatises were 
 ascribed to him. M. Penan concludes in the following 
 words : " We think, therefore, that the author of the third 
 Gospel and of the Acts is in all reality Luke, the disciple 
 of Paul." 
 
 Now let the import of these expressions of opinion be 
 duly weighed. Of course, H. Kenan's judgments are not 
 to be regarded as affording in themselves any adequate 
 basis for our acceptance of the authenticity of the chief 
 books of the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles 
 and the four Gospels bear on their face certain positive 
 claims, on the faith of which they have been accepted in 
 
80 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 all ages of the Church ; and they do not rest, in the first 
 instance, on the authority of any modern critic. But 
 though M. Eenan would be a very unsatisfactory witness 
 to rely upon for the purpose of positive testimony to the 
 Gospels, his estimates of the value of modern critical ob- 
 jections to those sacred books have all the weight of the 
 admissions of a hostile witness. No one doubts his famil- 
 iarity with the whole range of the criticism represented 
 by such names as Strauss and Baur, and no one questions 
 his disposition to give full weight to every objection 
 which that criticism can urge. Even without assuming 
 that he is prejudiced on either one side or the other, it 
 will be admitted on all hands that he is more favorably 
 disposed than otherwise to such criticism as Prof. Huxley 
 relies on. "When, therefore, with this full knowledge of 
 the literature of the subjects, such a writer comes to the 
 conclusion that the criticism in question has entirely failed 
 to make good its case on a point like that of the author- 
 ship of St. Luke's Gospel, we are at least justified in con- 
 cluding that critical objections do not possess the weight 
 which unbelievers or skeptics are wont to assign to them. 
 M. Renan, in a word, is no adequate witness to the Gos- 
 pels ; but he is a very significant witness as to the value 
 of modern critical objections to them. 
 
 Let us pass to the two other so-called " synoptical " 
 Gospels. With respect to St. Matthew, M. Eenan says 
 in the same preface (" Yie de Jesus," p. lxxxi) : 
 
 To sum up, I admit the four canonical Gospels as serious docu- 
 ments. All go back to the age which followed the death of Jesus ; 
 but their historical value is very diverse. St. Matthew evidently 
 deserves peculiar confidence for the discourses. Here are "the 
 oracles," the very notes taken while the memory of the instruction 
 of Jesus was living and definite. A kind of flashing brightness at 
 once sweet and terrible, a divine force, if I may so say, underlies 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 81 
 
 these words, detaches them from the context, and renders them 
 easily recognizable by the critic. 
 
 In respect again to St. Mark, he says (p. lxxxii) : 
 
 The Gospel of St. Mark is the one of the three synoptics which 
 has remained the most ancient, the most original, and to which the 
 least of later additions have been made. The details of fact possess 
 in St. Mark a definiteness which we seek in vain in the other evan- 
 gelists. He is fond of reporting certain sayings of our Lord in Syro- 
 Chaldaic. He is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond 
 doubt, from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with the 
 supposition that this eye-witness, who had evidently followed Jesus, 
 who had loved him and watched him in close intimacy, and who 
 had preserved a vivid image of him, was the apostle Peter himself, 
 as Papias has it. 
 
 I call these admissions a " practical surrender " of the 
 adverse case, as stated by critics like Strauss and Baur, 
 who denied that we had in the Gospels contemporary 
 evidence, aud I do not think it necessary to define the 
 adjective, in order to please Prof. Huxley's appetite for 
 definitions. At the very least it is a direct contradiction 
 of Prof. Huxley's statement * that we know " absolutely 
 nothing " of " the originator or originators " of the narra- 
 tives in the first three Gospels ; aud it is an equally direct 
 contradiction of the case, on which his main reply to my 
 paper is based, that we have no trustworthy evidence of 
 what our Lord taught and believed. 
 
 But Prof. Huxley seems to have been apprehensive 
 that M. Penan would fail him, for he proceeds, in the 
 passage I have quoted, to throw him over and to take 
 refuge behind " the main results of biblical criticism, as 
 they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Keuss, 
 and Volkmar, for example." It is scarcely comprehen- 
 
 * Page 24. 
 
82 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 sible how a writer, who has acquaintance enough with 
 this subject to venture on Prof. Huxley's sweeping asser- 
 tions, can have ventured to couple together those four 
 names for such a purpose. " Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and 
 Yolkmar " ! Why, they are absolutely destructive of one 
 another ! Baur rejected Strauss's theory and set up one 
 of his own ; while Reuss and Yolkmar in their turn have 
 each dealt fatal blows at Baur's. As to Strauss, I need 
 not spend more time on him than to quote the sentence 
 in which Baur himself puts him out of court on this par- 
 ticular controversy. He says,* " The chief peculiarity of 
 Strauss's work is, that it is a criticism of the Gospel his- 
 tory without a criticism of the Gospels." Strauss, in fact, 
 explained the miraculous stories in the Gospels by resolv- 
 ing them into myths, and it was of no importance to his 
 theory how the documents originated. But Baur en- 
 deavored, by a minute criticism of the Gospels themselves, 
 to investigate the historical circumstances of their origin ; 
 and he maintained that they were Tendenz-Schriften, 
 compiled in the second century, with polemical purposes. 
 Yolkmar, however, is in direct conflict with Baur on this 
 point, and in the very work to which Prof. Huxley refers, f 
 he enumerates (p. 18) among " the written testimonies of 
 the first century " — besides St. Paul's epistles to the Ga- 
 latians, Corinthians, and Romans, and the apocalypse of 
 St. John—" the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
 according to John Mark of Jerusalem, written a few years 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, between the years 70 
 and 80 of our reckoning — about 75 probably ; to be pre- 
 cise, about 73," and he proceeds to give a detailed account 
 
 * " Kritische Untersuchungen liber die kanonischen Evangelien," 1847, 
 p. 41. 
 
 f " Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit," 1882. 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 83 
 
 of it, " according to the oldest text, and particularly the 
 Vatican text," as indispensable to his account of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. He treats it as written (p. 172) either by John 
 Mark of Jerusalem himself, or by a younger friend of his. 
 Baur, therefore, having upset Strauss, Yolkmar proceeds 
 to upset Baur; -and what does Reuss do? I quote again 
 from that splendid French edition of the Bible, on which 
 Prof. Huxley so much relies. On page 88 of Reuss's in- 
 troduction to the synoptic Gospels, he sums up "the 
 results he believes to have been obtained by critical analy 
 sis," under thirteen heads ; and the following are some of 
 them : 
 
 2. Of the three synoptic Gospels one only, that which ecclesias- 
 tical tradition agrees in attributing to Luke, has reached us in its 
 primitive form. 
 
 3. Luke could draw his knowledge of the Gospel history partly 
 from oral information ; he was able, in Palestine itself, to receive 
 direct communications from immediate witnesses. . . . We may 
 think especially here of the history of the passion and the resur- 
 rection, and perhaps also of some other passages of which he is the 
 sole narrator. 
 
 4. A book, which an ancient and respectable testimony attrib- 
 utes to Mark, the disciple of Peter, was certainly used by St. 
 Luke as the principal source of the portion of his Gospel between 
 chapter iv, 31, and ix, 50 ; and between xviii, 15, and xxi, 38. 
 
 5. According to all probability, the book of Mark, consulted by 
 Luke, comprised in its primitive form what we read in the present 
 day from Mark i, 21, to xiii, 37. 
 
 It seems unnecessary, for the purpose of estimating 
 the value of Prof. Huxley's appeal to these critics, to 
 quote any more. It appears from these statements of 
 Reuss that if "the results of biblical criticism," as repre- 
 sented by him, are to be trusted, we have the whole third 
 Gospel in its primitive form, as it was written by St. 
 Luke ; and in this, as we have seen, Reuss is in entire 
 
84 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 agreement with Kenan. But besides this, a previous 
 book written by Mark, St. Peter's disciple, was certainly 
 in existence before Luke's Gospel, and was used by Luke ; 
 and in all probability this book was, in its primitive form, 
 the greater part of our present Gospel of St. Mark. 
 
 Such are those " results of biblical criticism " to which 
 Prof. Huxley has appealed ; and we may fairly judge by 
 these not only of the value of his special contention in 
 reply to my paper, but of the worth of the sweeping as- 
 sertions he, and writers like him, are given to making 
 about modern critical science. Prof. Huxley says that 
 we know " absolutely nothing " about the originators of 
 the Gospel narratives, and he appeals to criticism in the 
 persons of Yolkmar and Reuss. Yolkmar says that the 
 second Gospel is really either by St. Mark or by one of 
 his friends, and was written about the year 75. Reuss 
 says that the third Gospel, as we now have it, was really 
 by St. Luke. Now Prof. Huxley is, of course, entitled 
 to his own opinion ; but he is not entitled to quote au- 
 thorities in support of his opinion when they are in di- 
 rect opposition to it. He asserts, without the slightest 
 fear of refutation, that " the four Gospels, as they have 
 come to us, are the work of unknown writers." His ar- 
 guments in defense of such a position will be listened to 
 with great respect ; but let it be borne in mind that the 
 opposite arguments he has got to meet are not only those 
 of orthodox critics like myself, but those of Renan, of 
 Yolkmar, and of Reuss — I may add of Pneiderer, well 
 known in this country by his Hibbert Lectures, who, in 
 his recent work on original Christianity, attributes most 
 positively the second Gospel in its present form to St. 
 Mark, and declares that there is no ground whatever for 
 that supposition of an Ur-Marcus — that is an original 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 85 
 
 groundwork — from which Prof. Huxley alleges that " at 
 the present time there is no visible escape." If I were 
 such an authority on morality as Prof. Huxley, I might 
 perhaps use some unpleasant language respecting this 
 vague assumption of criticism being all on his side, when 
 it, in fact, directly contradicts him ; and his case is not 
 the only one to which such strictures might be applied. 
 In " Robert Elsmere," for example, there is some vapor- 
 ing about the " great critical operation of the present cent- 
 ury " having destroyed the historical basis of the Gospel 
 narrative. As a matter of fact, as we have seen, the 
 great critical operation has resulted, according to the tes- 
 timony of the critics whom Prof. Huxley himself selects, 
 in establishing the fact that we possess contemporary 
 records of our Lord's life from persons who were either eye- 
 witnesses, or who were in direct communication with eye- 
 witnesses, on the very scene in which it was passed. Either 
 Prof. Huxley's own witnesses are not to be trusted, or 
 Prof. Huxley's allegations are rash and unfounded. Con- 
 clusions which are denied by Volkmar, denied by Renan, 
 denied by Reuss, are not to be thrown at our heads with 
 a superior air, as if they could not be reasonably doubted. 
 The great result of the critical operation of this century 
 has, in fact, been to prove that the contention with which 
 it started in the persons of Strauss and Baur, that we 
 have no contemporary records of Christ's life, is wholly 
 untenable. It has not convinced any of the living critics 
 to whom Prof. Huxley appeals ; and if he, or any similar 
 writer, still maintains such an assertion let it be understood 
 that he stands alone against the leading critics of Europe 
 in the present day. 
 
 Perhaps I need say no more for the present in reply 
 to Prof. Huxley. I have, I think, shown that he has 
 
86 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 evaded my point ; he has evaded his own points ; he has 
 misquoted my words ; he has misrepresented the results 
 of the very criticism to which he appeals ; and he rests 
 his case on assumptions which his own authorities repu- 
 diate. The questions he touches are very grave ones, not 
 to be adequately treated in a review article. But I 
 should have supposed it a point of scientific morality to 
 treat them, if they are to be treated, with accuracy of ref- 
 erence and strictness of argument. 
 
IV. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HUXLEY. 
 By W. C. MAGEE, 
 
 BISHOP OF PETEBBOBOUGH. 
 
 I should be wanting in the respect which I sincerely 
 entertain for Prof. Huxley if I were not to answer his 
 " appeal " to me in the last number of this review for my 
 opinion on a point in controversy between him and Dr. 
 Wace. Prof. Huxley asks me, "in the. name of all that 
 is Hibernian, why a man should be expected to call him- 
 self a miscreant or an infidel " ? I might reply to this 
 after the alleged fashion of my countrymen by asking 
 him another question, namely — When or where did I ever 
 say that I expected him to call himself by either of these 
 names ? I can not remember having said anything that 
 even remotely implied this, and I do not therefore exactly 
 see why he should appeal to my confused " Hibernian " 
 judgment to decide such a question. 
 
 As he has done so, however, I reply that I think it 
 unreasonable to expect a man to call himself anything un- 
 less and until good and sufficient reason has been given 
 him why he should do so. We are all of us bad judges 
 as to what we are and as to what we should therefore be 
 called. Other persons classify us according to what they 
 
88 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 know, or think they know, of our characters or opinions, 
 sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. And were I 
 to find myself apparently incorrectly classified, as I very 
 often do, I should be quite content with asking the person 
 who had so classified me, first to define his terms, and 
 next to show that these, as defined, were correctly applied 
 to me. If he succeeded in doing this, I should accept his 
 designation of me without hesitation, inasmuch as I should 
 be sorry to* call myself by a false name. 
 
 In this case, accordingly, if I might venture a sugges- 
 tion to Prof. Huxley, it would be that the term " infidel " 
 is capable of definition, and that when Dr. Wace has de- 
 fined it, if the professor accept his definition, it would re- 
 main for them to decide between them whether Prof. 
 Huxley's utterances do or do not bring him under the 
 category of infidels, as so defined. Then, if it could be 
 clearly proved that they do, from what I know of Prof. 
 Huxley's love of scientific accuracy and his courage and 
 candor, I certainly should expect that he would call him- 
 self an infidel — and a miscreant too, in the original and 
 etymological sense of that unfortunate term, and that he 
 would even glory in those titles. If they should not be 
 so proved to be applicable, then I should hold it to be as 
 unreasonable to expect him to call himself by such names 
 as he, I suppose, would hold it to be to expect us Chris- 
 tians to admit, without better reason than he has yet given 
 us, that Christianity is " the sorry stuff " which, with his 
 " profoundly " moral readiness to say " unpleasant" things, 
 he is pleased to say that it is. 
 
 There is another reference to myself, however, in the 
 professor's article as to which I feel that he has a better 
 right to appeal to me — or, rather, against me, to the read- 
 ers of this review — and that is, as to my use, in my speech 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 89 
 
 at the Manchester Congress, of the expression " cowardly 
 agnosticism." I have not the report of my speech before 
 me, and am writing, therefore, from memory; bnt my 
 memory or the report must have played me sadly false if 
 I am made to describe all agnostics as cowardly. A much 
 slighter knowledge than I possess of Prof. Huxley's writ- 
 ings would have certainly prevented my applying to all 
 agnosticism or agnostics such an epithet. 
 
 What I intended to express, and what I think I did 
 express by this phrase was, that there is an agnosticism 
 which is cowardly. And this I am convinced that there 
 is, and that there is a great deal of it too, just now. There 
 is an agnosticism which is simply the cowardly escaping 
 from the pain and difficulty of contemplating and trying 
 to solve the terrible problems of life by the help of the 
 convenient phrase, " I don't know," which very often 
 means " I don't care." " We don't know anything, don't 
 you know, about these things. Prof. Huxley, don't you 
 know, says that we do not, and I agree with him. Let us 
 split a B. and S." 
 
 There is, I fear, a very large amount of this kind of 
 agnosticism among the more youthful professors of that 
 philosophy, and indeed among a large number of easy- 
 going, comfortable men of the world, as they call them- 
 selves, who find agnosticism a pleasant shelter from the 
 trouble of thought and the pain of effort and self-denial. 
 And if I remember rightly it was of such agnostics I was 
 speaking when I described them as " chatterers in our 
 clubs and drawing-rooms," and as " freethinkers who had 
 yet to learn to think." 
 
 There is therefore in my opinion a cowardly agnos- 
 ticism just as there is also a cowardly Christianity. A 
 Christian who spends his whole life in the selfish aim of 
 
90 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 saving his own soul, and never troubles himself with try- 
 ing to help to save other men, either from destruction in 
 the next world or from pain and suffering here, is a cow- 
 ardly Christian. The eremites of the early days of Chris- 
 tianity, who fled away from their place in the world where 
 God had put them, to spend solitary and, as they thought, 
 safer lives in the wilderness, were typical examples of 
 such cowardice. But in saying that there is such a thing 
 as a cowardly Christianity, I do not thereby allege that 
 there is no Christianity which is not cowardly. Similarly, 
 when I speak of a cowardly agnosticism, I do not thereby 
 allege that there is no agnosticism which is not cowardly, 
 or which may not be as fearless as Prof. Huxley has 
 always shown himself to be. 
 
 I hope that I have now satisfied the professor on the 
 two points on which he has appealed to me. There is 
 much in the other parts of his article which tempts me to 
 reply. But I have a dislike to thrusting myself into 
 other men's disputes, more especially when a combatant 
 like Dr. Wace, so much more competent than myself, is 
 in the field. I leave the professor in his hands, with the 
 anticipation that he will succeed in showing him that a 
 scientist dealing with questions of theology or biblical 
 criticism may go quite as far astray as theologians often 
 do in dealing with questions of science. 
 
 My reply to Prof. Huxley is accordingly confined to 
 the strictly personal questions raised by his references to 
 myself. I hope that, after making due allowance for 
 Hibernicisms and for imperfect acquaintance with Eng- 
 lish modes of thought and expression, he will accept my 
 explanation as sufficient. 
 
V. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 
 
 By Pkof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY. 
 
 The concluding paragraph of the Bishop of Peter- 
 borough's reply to the appeal which I addressed to him 
 in the penultimate number of this review, leads me to 
 think that he has seen a personal reference where none 
 was intended. I had ventured to suggest that the demand 
 that a man should call himself an infidel, savored very 
 much of the flavor of a " bull " ; and, even had the Right 
 Reverend prelate been as stolid an Englishman as I am, I 
 should have entertained the hope, that the oddity of talk- 
 ing of the cowardice of persons who object to call them- 
 selves by a nickname, which must in their eyes be as in- 
 appropriate as, in the intention of the users, it is offensive, 
 would have struck him. But, to my surprise, the bishop 
 has not even yet got sight of that absurdity. He thinks, 
 that if I accept Dr. Wace's definition of his much-loved 
 epithet, I am logically bound not only to adopt the titles 
 of infidel and miscreant, but that I shall " even glory in 
 those titles." As 1 have shown, " infidel" merely means 
 somebody who does not believe what you believe your- 
 self, and therefore Dr. Wace has a perfect right to call, 
 say, my old Egyptian donkey-driver, Nooleh, and myself, 
 infidels, just as Nooleh and I have a right to call him an 
 
92 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 infidel. The ludicrous aspect of the thing comes in only 
 when either of us demands that the two others should so 
 label themselves. It is a terrible business to have to ex- 
 plain a mild jest, and I pledge myself not to run the risk 
 of offending in this way again. I see how wrong I was 
 in trusting to the bishop's sense of the ludicrous, and I 
 beg leave unreservedly to withdraw my misplaced confi- 
 dence. And I take this course the more readily as there 
 is something about which I am obliged again to trouble 
 the Bishop of Peterborough, which is certainly no jesting 
 matter. Kef erring to my question, the bishop says that 
 if they (the terms " infidel " and " miscreant ") 
 
 should not be so proved to be applicable, then I should hold it to be 
 as unreasonable to expect him to call himself by such names as he, 
 I suppose, would hold it to be to expect us Christians to admit, 
 without better reason than he has yet given us, that Christianity is 
 " the sorry stuff" which, with his " profoundly " moral readiness to 
 say " unpleasant " things, he is pleased to say that it is.* 
 
 According to those " English modes of thought and 
 expression," of which the bishop seems to have but a poor 
 opinion, this is a deliberate assertion that I had said that 
 Christianity is " sorry stuff." And, according to the same 
 standard of fair dealing, it is, I think, absolutely necessary 
 for the Bishop of Peterborough to produce the evidence 
 on which this positive statement is based. I shall be un- 
 feignedly surprised if he is successful in proving it ; but 
 it is proper for me to wait and see. 
 
 Those who passed from Dr. "Wace's article in the last 
 number of this review to the anticipatory confutation of 
 it which followed in " The New Reformation," must have 
 enjoyed the pleasure of a dramatic surprise — just as when 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 93 
 
 the fifth act of a new play proves unexpectedly bright 
 and interesting. Mrs. "Ward will, I hope, pardon the 
 comparison, if I say that her effective clearing away of 
 antiquated incumbrances from the lists of the controversy 
 reminds me of nothing so much as of the action of some 
 neat-handed, but strong-wristed, Phyllis, who, gracefully 
 wielding her long-handled " Turk's head," sweeps away 
 the accumulated results of the toil of generations of spi- 
 ders. I am the more indebted to this luminous sketch of 
 the results of critical investigation, as it is carried out 
 among those theologians who are men of science and not 
 mere counsel for creeds, since it has relieved me from the 
 necessity of dealing with the greater part of Dr. Wace's 
 polemic, and enables me to devote more space to the 
 really important issues which have been raised.f 
 
 Perhaps, however, it may be well for me to observe 
 that approbation of the manner in which a great biblical 
 scholar, for instance Peuss, does his work does not commit 
 me to the adoption of all, or indeed of any of his views ; 
 and further, that the disagreements of a series of investi- 
 gators do not in any way interfere with the fact that each 
 of them has made important contributions to the body of 
 truth ultimately established. If I cite Buffon, Linnseus, 
 Lamarck, and Cuvier, as having each and all taken a lead- 
 ing share in building up modern biology, the statement 
 that every one of these great naturalists disagreed with, 
 and even more or less contradicted, all the rest is quite 
 true ; but the supposition that the latter assertion is in any 
 way inconsistent with the former, would betray a strange 
 
 f I may perhaps return to the question of the authorship of the Gospels. 
 For the present I must content myself with warning my readers against any 
 reliance upon Dr. "Wace's statements as to the results arrived at by modern 
 criticism. They are as gravely as surprisingly erroneous. 
 
94 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ignorance of the manner in which all true science ad- 
 vances. 
 
 Dr. Wace takes a great deal of trouble to make it ap- 
 pear that I have desired to evade the real questions raised 
 by his attack upon me at the Church Congress. I assure 
 the reverend principal that in this, as in some other re- 
 spects, he has entertained a very erroneous conception of 
 my intentions. Things would assume more accurate pro- 
 portions in Dr. Wace's mind if he would kindly remem- 
 ber that it is just thirty years since ecclesiastical thunder- 
 bolts began to fly about my ears. I have had the " Lion 
 and the Bear" to deal with, and it is long since I got 
 quite used to the threatenings of episcopal Goliaths, whose 
 crosiers were like unto a weaver's beam. So that I almost 
 think I might not have noticed Dr. "Wace's attack, per- 
 sonal as it was ; and although, as he is good enough to 
 tell us, separate copies are to be had for the modest equiv- 
 alent of twopence, as a matter of fact, it did not come 
 under my notice for a long time after it was made. May 
 I further venture to point out that (reckoning postage) 
 the expenditure of twopence-halfpenny, or, at the most, 
 threepence, would have enabled Dr. Wace so far to com- 
 ply with ordinary conventions as to direct my attention 
 to the fact that he had attacked me before a meeting at 
 which I was not present % I really am not responsible 
 for the five months' neglect of which Dr. Wace com- 
 plains. Singularly enough, the Englishry who swarmed 
 about the Engadine, during the three months that I was 
 being brought back to life by the glorious air and perfect 
 comfort of the Maloja, did not, in my hearing, say any- 
 thing about the important events which had taken place 
 at the Church Congress ; and I think I can venture to 
 affirm that there was not a single copy of Dr. Wace's 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 95 
 
 pamphlet in any of the hotel libraries which I rummaged 
 in search of something more edifying than dull English 
 or questionable French novels. 
 
 And now, having, as I hope, set myself right with 
 the public as regards the sins of commission and omission 
 with which I have been charged, I feel free to deal with 
 matters to which time and type may be more profitably 
 devoted. 
 
 The Bishop of Peterborough indulges in the anticipa- 
 tion that Dr. Wace will succeed in showing me " that a 
 scientist dealing with questions of theology or biblical 
 criticism may go quite as far astray as theologians often 
 do in dealing with questions of science." * I have al- 
 ready admitted that vaticination is not in my line ; and 
 I can not so much as hazard a guess whether the spirit of 
 prophecy which has descended on the bishop comes from 
 the one or the other of the two possible sources recog- 
 nized by the highest authorities. But I think it desirable 
 to warn those who may be misled by phraseology of this 
 kind, that the antagonists in the present debate are not 
 quite rightly represented by it. Undoubtedly, Dr. Wace 
 is a theologian ; and I should be the last person to ques- 
 tion that his whole cast of thought and style of argumen- 
 tation are pre-eminently and typically theological. And, 
 if I must accept the hideous term " scientist " (to which I 
 object even more than I do to " infidel "), I am ready to 
 admit that I am one of the people so denoted. 
 
 But I hope and believe that there is not a solitary ar- 
 gument I have used, or that I am about to use, which is 
 original, or has anything to do with the fact that I have 
 been chiefly occupied with natural science. They are all, 
 facts and reasoning alike, either identical with, or conse- 
 
 * Page 90. 
 
96 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 quential upon, propositions which are to be found in the 
 works of scholars and theologians of the highest repute in 
 the only two countries, Holland and Germany,* in which, 
 at the present time, professors of theology are to be found 
 whose tenure of their posts does not depend upon the re- 
 sults to which their inquiries lead them, f 
 
 It is true that, to the best of my ability, I have satis- 
 fied myself of the soundness of the foundations on which 
 my arguments are built, and I desire to be held fully re- 
 sponsible for everything I say. But, nevertheless, my 
 position is really no more than that of an expositor ; and 
 my justification for undertaking it is simply that convic- 
 tion of the supremacy of private judgment (indeed, of the 
 impossibility of escaping it) which is the foundation of 
 the Protestant Reformation, and which was the doctrine 
 accepted by the vast majority of the Anglicans of my 
 youth, before that backsliding toward the " beggarly rudi- 
 ments" of an effete and idolatrous sacerdotalism which 
 has, even now, provided us with the saddest spectacle 
 which has been offered to the eyes of Englishmen in this 
 
 * The United States ought, perhaps, to be added, but I am not sure. 
 
 f Imagine that all our chairs of Astronomy had been founded in the four- 
 teenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to sign Ptolemaic 
 articles. In that case, with every respect for the efforts of persons thus 
 hampered to attain and expound the truth, I think men of common sense 
 would go elsewhere to learn astronomy. Zeller's " Vortrage und Abhand- 
 lungen " were published and came into my hands a quarter of a century 
 ago. The writer's rank, as a theologian to begin with, and subsequently as 
 a historian of Greek philosophy, is of the highest. Among these essays 
 are two — " Das Urchristenthum " and " Die Tiibinger historische Schule " — 
 which are likely to be of more use to those who wish to know the real state 
 of the case than all that the official " apologists," with their one eye on 
 truth and the other on the tenets of their sect, have written. For the opin- 
 ion of a scientific theologian about theologians of this stamp see pp. 225 
 and 227 of the " Vortracre." 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 97 
 
 generation. A high court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
 with a host of great lawyers in battle array, is, and, for 
 Heaven knows how long, will be occupied with these 
 very questions of " washings of cups and pots and brazen 
 vessels," which the Master, whose professed representa- 
 tives are rending the Church over these squabbles, had in 
 his mind wheD, as we are told, he uttered the scathing re- 
 buke: 
 
 Well did Isaiah prophesy of yon hypocrites, as it is written : 
 This people honoreth me with their lips, 
 But their heart is far from me : 
 But in vain do they worship me, 
 Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men (Mark vii, 6, 7). 
 
 Men who can be absorbed in bickerings over miserable 
 disputes of this kind can have but little sympathy with 
 the old evangelical doctrine of the " open Bible," or any- 
 thing but a grave misgiving of the results of diligent 
 reading of the Bible, without the help of ecclesiastical 
 spectacles, by the mass of the people. Greatly to the sur- 
 prise of many of my friends, I have always advocated the 
 reading of the Bible, and the diffusion of the study of 
 that most remarkable collection of books among the peo- 
 ple. Its teachings are so infinitely superior to those of 
 the sects, who are just as busy now as the Pharisees were 
 eighteen hundred years ago, in smothering them under 
 " the precepts of men " ; it is so certain, to my mind, that 
 the Bible contains within itself the refutation of nine 
 tenths of the mixture of sophistical metaphysics and old- 
 world superstition which has been piled round it by the 
 so-called Christians of later times ; it is so clear that the 
 only immediate and ready antidote to the poison which 
 has been mixed with Christianity, to the intoxication and 
 delusion of mankind, lies in copious draughts from the 
 5 
 
98 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 undefiled spring, that I exercise the right and duty of 
 free judgment on the part of every man, mainly for the 
 purpose of inducing other laymen to follow my example. 
 If the New Testament is translated into Zulu by Protes- 
 tant missionaries, it must be assumed that a Zulu convert 
 is competent to draw from its contents all the truths 
 which it is necessary for him to believe. I trust that I 
 may, without immodesty, claim to be put on the same 
 footing as the Zulu. 
 
 The most constant reproach which is launched against 
 persons of my way of thinking is, that it is all very well 
 for us to talk about the deductions of scientific thought, 
 but what are the poor and the uneducated to do ? Has it 
 ever occurred to those who talk in this fashion that the 
 creeds and articles of their several confessions ; their de- 
 termination of the exact nature and extent of the teach- 
 ings of Jesus ; their expositions of the real meaning of 
 that which is written in the Epistles (to leave aside all 
 questions concerning the Old Testament) are nothing 
 more than deductions, which, at any rate, profess to be 
 the result of strictly scientific thinking, and which are 
 not worth attending to unless they really possess that 
 character? If it is not historically true that such and 
 such things happened in Palestine eighteen centuries ago, 
 what becomes of Christianity? And what is historical 
 truth but that of which the evidence bears strict scientific 
 investigation? I do not call to mind any problem of 
 natural science which has come under my notice, which is 
 more difficult, or more curiously interesting as a mere 
 problem, than that of the origin of the synoptic Gospels 
 and that of the historical value of the narratives which 
 they contain. The Christianity of the churches stands or 
 falls by the results of the purely scientific investigation of 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 99 
 
 these questions. They were first taken up in a purely 
 scientific spirit just about a century ago ; they have been 
 studied, over and over again, by men of vast knowledge 
 and critical acumen ; but he would be a rash man who 
 should assert that any solution of these problems, as yet 
 formulated, is exhaustive. The most that can be said is 
 that certain prevalent solutions are certainly false, while 
 others are more or less probably true. 
 
 If I am doing my best to rouse my countrymen out 
 of their dogmatic slumbers, it is not that they may be 
 amused by seeing who gets the best of it, in a contest be- 
 tween a "scientist" and a theologian. The serious ques- 
 tion is whether theological men of science, or theological 
 special pleaders, are to have the confidence of the general 
 public ; it is the question whether a country in which it 
 is possible for a body of excellent clerical and lay gentle- 
 men to discuss, in public meeting assembled, how much 
 it is desirable to let the congregations of the faithful 
 know of the results of biblical criticism, is likely to wake 
 up with anything short of the grasp of a rough lay hand 
 upon its shoulder ; it is the question whether the Kew 
 Testament books, being as I believe they were, written 
 and compiled by people who, according to their lights, 
 were perfectly sincere, will not, when properly studied as 
 ordinary historical documents, afford us the means of self- 
 criticism. And it must be remembered that the JSTew 
 Testament books are not responsible for the doctrine in- 
 vented by the churches that they are anything but ordi- 
 nary historical documents. The author of the third Gos- 
 pel tells us as straightforwardly as a man can that he has 
 no claim to any other character than that of an ordinary 
 compiler and editor, who had before him the works of 
 many and variously qualified predecessors. 
 
100 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 In my former papers, according to Dr. Wace, I have 
 evaded giving an answer to his main proposition, which 
 he states as follows : 
 
 Apart from all disputed points of criticism, no one practically 
 doubts that our Lord lived and that he died on the cross, in the 
 most intense sense of filial relation to his Father in heaven, and that 
 he bore testimony to that Father's providence, love, and grace 
 toward mankind. The Lord's Prayer affords a sufficient evidence 
 on these points. If the Sermon on the Mount alone be added, the 
 whole unseen world, of which the agnostic refuses to know any- 
 thing, stands unveiled before us. . . . If Jesus Christ preached that 
 sermon, made those promises, and taught that prayer, then any one 
 who says that we know nothing of God, or of a future life, or of an 
 unseen world, says that he does not believe Jesus Christ.* 
 
 Again — 
 
 The main question at issue, in a word, is one which Prof. Huxley 
 has chosen to leave entirely on one side — whether, namely, allowing 
 for the utmost uncertainty on other points of the criticism to which 
 he appeals, there is any reasonable doubt that the Lord's Prayer and 
 the Sermon on the Mount afford a true account of our Lord's essen- 
 tial belief and cardinal teaching.! 
 
 I certainly was not aware that I had evaded the ques- 
 tions here stated ; indeed, I should say that I have indi- 
 cated my reply to them pretty clearly ; but, as Dr. Wace 
 wants a plainer answer, he shall certainly be gratified. 
 If, as Dr. Wace declares it is, his "whole case is in- 
 volved in " the argument as stated in the latter of these 
 two extracts, so much the worse for his whole case. For 
 I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for doubt- 
 ing whether the " Sermon on the Mount " was ever 
 preached, and whether the so-called "Lord's Prayer" 
 was ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth. My reasons for 
 this opinion are, among others, these : There is now no 
 
 * Page 63. f Page 64. 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A EEJOIXLEE. 101 
 
 doubt that the three synoptic Gospels, so far from being 
 the work of three independent writers, are closely inter- 
 dependent, * and that in one of two ways. Either all 
 three contain, as their foundation, versions, to a large ex- 
 tent verbally identical, of one and the same tradition ; or 
 two of them are thus closely dependent on the third ; and 
 the opinion of the majority of the best critics has, of late 
 years, more and more converged toward the conviction 
 that our canonical second Gospel (the so-called i; Mark's'' 
 Gospel) is that which most closely represents the primitive 
 groundwork of the three.+ That I take to be one of the 
 most valid results of Xew Testament criticism, of im- 
 measurably greater importance than the discussion about 
 dates and authorship. 
 
 But if , as I believe to be the case, beyond any rational 
 doubt or dispute, the second Gospel is the nearest extant 
 representative of the oldest tradition, whether written or 
 
 * I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he says that 
 I allege that there "is no visible escape"' from the supposition of an " Ur- 
 Marcus " f p. 82). That a " theologian of repute " should confound an indis- 
 putable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact, is not so sin- 
 gular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might 
 imagine. 
 
 f Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of " copy- 
 ing " will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case 
 stated in that most excellent little book, M The Common Tradition of the 
 Synoptic Gospels," by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke (Macmillan. 1884). 
 To those who have not passed through such painful experiences I may rec- 
 ommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the u Casket Let: 
 my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, "Maitland of Lethington."' The 
 second edition of Holtzmann's "Lehrbuch," published in 1886, gives a re- 
 markably fair and full account of the present results of criticism. At page 
 366 he writes that the present burning question is whether the " relatively 
 primitive narration and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained in 
 Matthew or in Mark. It is only on this point that properly informed {sack- 
 kundige) critics differ," and he decides in favor of Mark. 
 
102 GNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 oral, how comes it that it contains neither the " Sermon 
 on the Mount " nor the " Lord's Prayer," those typical 
 embodiments, according to Dr. Wace, of the " essential 
 belief and cardinal teaching " of Jesus ? Not only does 
 " Mark's " Gospel fail to contain the " Sermon on the 
 Mount," or anything but a very few of the sayings con- 
 tained in that collection ; but, at the point of the history 
 of Jesus where the " Sermon " occurs in " Matthew," 
 there is in "Mark" an apparently unbroken narrative, 
 from the calling of James and John to the healing of 
 Simon's wife's mother. Thus the oldest tradition not 
 only ignores the " Sermon on the Mount," but, by impli- 
 cation, raises a probability against its being delivered 
 when and where the later " Matthew " inserts it in his 
 compilation. 
 
 And still more weighty is the fact that the third Gos- 
 pel, the author of which tells us that he wrote after 
 " many " others had " taken in hand " the same enterprise ; 
 who should therefore have known the first Gospel (if it 
 existed), and was bound to pay to it the deference due to 
 the work of an apostolic eye-witness (if he had any reason 
 for thinking it was so) — this writer, who exhibits far 
 more literary competence than the other two, ignores any 
 " Sermon on the Mount," such as that reported by " Mat- 
 thew," just as much as the oldest authority does. Yet 
 "Luke " has a great many passages identical, or parallel, 
 with those in "Matthew's" "Sermon on the Mount," 
 which are, for the most part, scattered about in a totally 
 different connection. 
 
 Interposed, however, between the nomination of the 
 apostles and a visit to Capernaum ; occupying, therefore, 
 a place which answers to that of the " Sermon on the 
 Mount" in the first Gospel, there is, in the third Gospel, 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 103 
 
 a discourse which is as closely similar to the " Sermon on 
 the Mount" in some particulars, as it is widely unlike it 
 in others. 
 
 This discourse is said to have been delivered in a 
 "plain"" or "level place" (Luke vi, 17), and by way of 
 distinction we may call it the " Sermon on the Plain." 
 
 I see no reason to doubt that the two evangelists are 
 dealing, to a considerable extent, with the same traditional 
 material ; and a comparison of the two " sermons " sug- 
 gests very strongly that " Luke's " version is the earlier. 
 The correspondences between the two forbid the notion 
 that they are independent. They both begin with a series 
 of blessings, some of which are almost verbally identical. 
 In the middle of each (Luke vi, 27-38, Matthew v, 43-48) 
 there is a striking exposition of the ethical spirit of the 
 command given in Leviticus xix, 18. And each ends 
 with a passage containing the declaration that a tree is to 
 be known by its fruit, and the parable of the house built 
 on the sand. But while there are only twenty -nine 
 verses in the " Sermon on the Plain," there are one hun- 
 dred and seven in the " Sermon on the Mount " ; the ex- 
 cess in length of the latter being chiefly due to the long 
 interpolations, one of thirty verses before, and one of 
 thirty-four verses after, the middlemost parallelism with 
 Luke. Under these circumstances, it is quite impossible 
 to admit that there is more probability that " Matthew's " 
 version of the sermon is historically accurate than there 
 is that Luke's version is so ; and they can not both be 
 accurate. 
 
 "Luke" either knew the collection of loosely con- 
 nected and aphoristic utterances which appear under the 
 name of the " Sermon on the Mount " in " Matthew," or 
 he did not. If he did not, he must have been ignorant of 
 
104: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 the existence of such a document as our canonical " Mat- 
 thew," a fact which does not make for the genuineness or 
 the authority of that book. If he did, he has shown that 
 he does not care for its authority on a matter of fact of no 
 small importance ; and that does not permit us to con- 
 ceive that he believed the first Gospel to be the work of 
 an authority to whom he ought to defer, let alone that of 
 an apostolic eye-witness. 
 
 The tradition of the Church about the second Gospel, 
 which I believe to be quite worthless, but which is all the 
 evidence there is for "Mark's" authorship, would have us 
 believe that " Mark" was little more than the mouth-piece 
 of the apostle Peter. Consequently, we are to suppose 
 that Peter either did not know, or did not care very much 
 for, that account of the "essential belief and cardinal 
 teaching " of Jesus which is contained in the Sermon on 
 the Mount ; and, certainly, he could not have shared Dr. 
 Wace's view of its importance.* 
 
 I thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent stu- 
 dents of the Gospels, to say nothing of theologians of 
 reputation, knew these things. But how can any one 
 who does know them have the conscience to ask whether 
 there is " any reasonable doubt " that the Sermon on the 
 Mount was preached by Jesus of Nazareth ? If conject- 
 ure is permissible, where nothing else is possible, the most 
 probable conjecture seems to be that " Matthew," having 
 
 * Holtzmann ("Die synoptischen Evangelien," 1863, p. 75), following 
 Ewald, argues that the "Source A"(=the threefold tradition, more or 
 less) contained something that answered to the " Sermon on the Plain " 
 immediately after the words of our present Mark, " And he cometh into a 
 house " (iii, 19). But what conceivable motive could " Mark " have for 
 omitting it ? Holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the " Sermon on the 
 Mount " is a compilation, or, as he calls it in his recently published " Lehr- 
 buch " (p. 872), " an artificial mosaic work." 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 105 
 
 a cento of sayings attributed — rightly or wrongly it is im- 
 possible to say — to Jesus, among bis materials, thought 
 they were, or might be, records of a continuous discourse, 
 and put them in at the place he thought likeliest. An- 
 cient historians of the highest character saw no harm in 
 composing long speeches which never were spoken, and 
 putting them into the mouths of statesmen and warriors ; 
 and I presume that whoever is represented by "Mat- 
 thew " would have been grievously astonished to find that 
 any one objected to his following the example of the best 
 models accessible to him. 
 
 So with the " Lord's Prayer." Absent in our repre- 
 sentative of the oldest tradition, it appears in both " Mat- 
 thew " and " Luke." There is reason to believe that every 
 pious Jew, at the commencement of our era, prayed three 
 times a day, according to a formula which is embodied in 
 the present Schmone-Esre * of the Jewish prayer-book. 
 Jesus, who was assuredly, in all respects, a pious Jew, 
 whatever else he may have been, doubtless did the same. 
 Whether he modified the current formula, or whether the 
 so-called "Lord's Prayer" is the prayer substituted for 
 the Schmone-Esre in the congregations of the Gentiles, 
 who knew nothing of the Jewish practice, is a question 
 which can hardly be answered. 
 
 In a subsequent passage of Dr. "Wace's article f he 
 adds to the list of the verities which he imagines to be 
 unassailable, " The story of the Passion." I am not quite 
 sure what he means by this — I am not aware that any one 
 (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has pro- 
 pounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion ; and 
 
 * See Schurer, " Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes," Zweiter Theil, 
 p. 384. 
 
 f Page 65. 
 
106 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 certainly I have no inclination to argue about the precise 
 accuracy of every detail of that pathetic story of suffering 
 and wrong. But, if Dr. Wace means, as I suppose he 
 does, that that which, according to the orthodox view, 
 happened after the crucifixion, and which is, in a dog- 
 matic sense, the most important part of the story, is 
 founded on solid historical proofs, I must beg leave to 
 express a diametrically opposite conviction. 
 
 What do we find when the accounts of the events in 
 question, contained iu the three synoptic Gospels, are 
 compared together? In the oldest, there is a simple, 
 straightforward statement which, for anything that I 
 have to urge to the contrary, may be exactly true. In the 
 other two, there is, round this possible and probable nucleus, 
 a mass of accretions of the most questionable character. 
 
 The cruelty of death by crucifixion depended very 
 much upon its lingering character. If there were a sup- 
 port for the weight of the body, as not unfrequently was 
 the case, the pain during the first hours of the infliction 
 was not, necessarily, extreme ; nor need any serious physi- 
 cal symptoms at once arise from the wounds made by 
 the nails in the hands and feet, supposing they were nailed, 
 which was not invariably the case. When exhaustion 
 set in, and hunger, thirst, and nervous irritation had done 
 their work, the agony of the sufferer must have been ter- 
 rible ; and the more terrible that, in the absence of any 
 effectual disturbance of the machinery of physical life, it 
 might be prolonged for many hours, or even days. Tem- 
 perate, strong men, such as the ordinary Galilean peasants 
 were, might live for several days on the cross. It is ne- 
 cessary to bear these facts in mind when we read the ac- 
 count contained in the fifteenth chapter of the second 
 Gospel. 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 107 
 
 Jesus was crucified at the third hour (xv, 25), and the 
 narrative seems' to imply that he died immediately after 
 the ninth hour (v. 34). In this case he would have been 
 crucified only six hours ; and the time spent on the cross 
 can not have been much longer, because Joseph of Ari- 
 mathea must have gone to Pilate, made his preparations, 
 and deposited the body in the rock-cut tomb before sun- 
 set, which, at that time of the year, was about the twelfth 
 hour. That any one should die after only six hours' cru- 
 cifixion could not have been at all in accordance with 
 Pilate's large experience in the effects of that method of 
 punishment. It, therefore, quite agrees with what might 
 be expected if Pilate " marveled if he were already dead," 
 and required to be satisfied on this point by the testimony 
 of the Roman officer who was in command of the execu- 
 tion party. Those who have paid attention to the ex- 
 traordinarily difficult question, What are the indisputable 
 signs of death ? — will be able to estimate the value of the 
 opinion of a rough soldier on such a subject ; even if his 
 report to the procurator were in no wise affected by the 
 fact that the friend of Jesus, who anxiously awaited his 
 answer, was a man of influence and of wealth. 
 
 The inanimate body, wrapped in linen, was deposited 
 in a spacious,* cool, rock chamber, the entrance of which 
 was closed, not by a well-fitting door, but by a stone rolled 
 against the opening, which would of course allow free 
 passage of air. A little more than thirty-six hours after- 
 ward (Friday 6 p. m., to Sunday 6 a. m., or a little after) 
 three women visit the tomb and find it empty. And 
 they are told by a young man " arrayed in a white 
 robe " that Jesus is gone to his native country of Gali- 
 
 * Spacious, because a young man could sit in it " on the right side " (xv, 
 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare. 
 
108 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 lee, and that the disciples and Peter will find him 
 there. 
 
 Thus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradi- 
 tion that, for. any evidence to the contrary, the sepulchre 
 may have been vacated at any time during the Friday or 
 Saturday nights. If it is said that no Jew would have 
 violated the Sabbath by taking the former course, it is to 
 be recollected that Joseph of Arimathea might well be 
 familiar with that wise and liberal interpretation of the 
 fourth commandment, which permitted works of mercy 
 to men — nay even the drawing of an ox or an ass out of 
 a pit — on the Sabbath. At any rate, the Saturday night 
 was free to the most scrupulous observers of the law. 
 
 These are the facts of the case as stated by the oldest 
 extant narrative of them. I do not see why any one 
 should have a word to say against the inherent probability 
 of that narrative ; and, for my part, I am quite ready to 
 accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more 
 is positively known of the end of Jesus of Nazareth. On 
 what grounds can a reasonable man be asked to believe 
 any more ? So far as the narrative in the first Gospel, on 
 the one hand, and those in the third Gospel and the Acts, 
 on the other go beyond what is stated in the second Gos- 
 pel, they are hopelessly discrepant with one another. And 
 this is the more significant because the pregnant phrase 
 " some doubted," in the first Gospel, is ignored in the third. 
 
 But it is said that we have the witness Paul speaking 
 to us directly in the Epistles. There is little doubt that 
 we have, and a very singular witness he is. According to 
 his own showing, Paul, in the vigor of his manhood, with 
 every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with 
 the evidence of eye-witnesses, not merely refused to credit 
 them, but " persecuted the church of God and made havoc 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 109 
 
 of it." The reasoning of Stephen fell dead upon the 
 acute intellect of this zealot for the traditions of his 
 fathers : his eyes were blind to the ecstatic illumination 
 of the martyr's countenance " as it had been the face of 
 an angel " ; and when, at the words " Behold, I see the 
 heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right 
 hand of God," the murderous mob rushed upon and 
 stoned the rapt disciple of Jesus, Paul ostentatiously made 
 himself their official accomplice. 
 
 Yet this strange man, because he has a vision one day, 
 at once, and with equally headlong zeal, flies to the oppo- 
 site pole of opinion. And he is most careful to tell us 
 that he abstained from any re-examination of the facts. 
 
 Immediately I conferred not with flesh and Mood ; neither went 
 I np to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ; but I 
 went away into Arabia. (Galatians i, 16, 17.) 
 
 I do not presume to quarrel with Paul's procedure. 
 If it satisfied him, that was his affair ; and, if it satisfies 
 any one else, I am not called upon to dispute the right of 
 that person to be satisfied. But I certainly have the right 
 to say that it would not satisfy me in like case ; that I 
 should be very much ashamed to pretend that it could, or 
 ought to, satisfy me ; and that I can entertain but a very low 
 estimate of the value of the evidence of people who are to 
 be satisfied in this fashion, when questions of objective fact, 
 in which their faith is interested, are concerned. So that, 
 when I am called upon to believe a great deal more than 
 the oldest Gospel tells me about the final events of the 
 history of Jesus on the authority of Paul (1 Corinthians 
 xv, 5-8), I must pause. Did he think it, at any subse- 
 quent time, worth while " to confer with flesh and blood," 
 or, in modern phrase, to re-examine the facts for himself ? 
 
110 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 or was he ready to accept anything that fitted in with his 
 preconceived ideas ? Does he mean, when he speaks of 
 all the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion as if they 
 were of the same kind, that they were all visions, like 
 the manifestation to himself ? And, finally, how is this 
 account to be reconciled with those in the first and the 
 third Gospels — which, as we have seen, disagree with one 
 another ? 
 
 Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am 
 afraid that, so far as I am concerned, Paul's testimony 
 can not be seriously regarded, except as it may afford evi- 
 dence of the state of traditional opinion at the time at 
 which he wrote, say between 55 and 60 a. d. ; that is, 
 more than twenty years after the event ; a period much 
 more than sufficient for the development of any amount 
 of mythology about matters of which nothing was really 
 known. A few years later, among the contemporaries 
 and neighbors of the Jews, and, if the most probable in- 
 terpretation of the Apocalypse can be trusted, among the 
 followers of Jesus also, it was fully believed, in spite of 
 all evidence to the contrary, that the Emperor JSero was 
 not really dead, but that he was hidden away somewhere 
 in the East, and would speedily come again at the head 
 of a great army, to be revenged upon his enemies. 
 
 Thus, I conceive that I have shown cause for the opin- 
 ion that Dr. Wace's challenge touchiug the Sermon on 
 the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Passion, was more 
 valorous than discreet. After all this discussion I am 
 still at the agnostic point. Tell me, first, what Jesus can 
 be proved to have been, said, and done, and I will tell 
 you whether I believe him, or in him,* or not ! As Dr. 
 
 * I am very sorry for the interpolated " in," because citation ought to 
 be accurate in small things as in great. But what difference it makes 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. HI 
 
 Wace admits that I have dissipated his lingering shade of 
 unbelief about the bedevilment of the Gadarene pigs, he 
 might have done something to help mine. Instead of that, 
 he manifests a total want of conception of the nature of the 
 obstacles which impede the conversion of his " infidels." 
 
 The truth I believe to be, that the difficulties in the 
 way of arriving at a sure conclusion as to these matters, 
 from the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, or any 
 other data offered by the synoptic Gospels (and a fortiori 
 from the fourth Gospel) are insuperable. Every one of 
 these records is colored by the prepossessions of those 
 among whom the primitive traditions arose and of those 
 by whom they were collected and edited ; and the diffi- 
 culty of making allowance for these prepossessions is en- 
 hanced by our ignorance of the exact dates at which the 
 documents were first put together ; of the extent to which 
 they have been subsequently worked over and interpo- 
 lated ; and of the historical sense, or want of sense, and 
 the dogmatic tendencies, of their compilers and editors. 
 Let us see if there is any other road which, will take us 
 into something better than negation. 
 
 There is a wide-spread notion that the "primitive 
 Church," while under the guidance of the apostles and 
 their immediate successors, was a sort of dogmatic dove- 
 cote, pervaded by the most loving unity and doctrinal 
 harmony. Protestants, especially, are fond of attributing 
 to themselves the merit of being nearer " the Church of 
 the apostles " than their neighbors ; and they are the less to 
 be excused for their strange delusion because they are great 
 
 whether one " believes Jesus " or "believes in Jesus" much thought has 
 not enabled me to discover. If you " believe him " you must believe him 
 to be what he professed to be — that is, "believe in him" ; and if you "be- 
 lieve in him " you must necessarily "believe him." 
 
112 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 readers of the documents which prove the exact contrary. 
 The fact is that, in the course of the first three centuries of 
 its existence, the Church rapidly underwent a process of 
 evolution of the most remarkable character, the final stage 
 of which is far more different from the first than Angli- 
 canism is from Quakerism. The key to the comprehension 
 of the problem of the origin of that which is now called 
 " Christianity," and its relation to Jesus of Nazareth, lies 
 here. Nor can we arrive at any sound conclusion as to what 
 it is probable that Jesus actually said and did without being 
 clear on this head. By far the most important and sub- 
 sequently influential steps in the evolution of Christianity 
 took place in the course of the century, more or less, 
 which followed upon the crucifixion. It is almost the 
 darkest period of Church history, but, most fortunately, 
 the beginning and the end of the period are brightly il- 
 luminated by the contemporary evidence of two writers 
 of whose historical existence there is no doubt,* and 
 against the genuineness of whose most important works 
 there is no widely admitted objection. These are Justin, 
 the philosopher and martyr, and Paul, the Apostle to the 
 Gentiles. I shall call upon these witnesses only to testify 
 to the condition of opinion among those who called them- 
 selves disciples of Jesus in their time. 
 
 Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which 
 was written somewhere about the middle of the second 
 century, enumerates certain categories of persons who, in 
 his opinion, will, or will not, be saved. f These are : 
 
 * True for Justin ; but there is a school of theological critics, who more 
 or less question the historical reality of Paul and the genuineness of even 
 the four cardinal epistles. 
 
 f See " Dial, cum Tryphone," sections 47 and 35. It is to be under- 
 stood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order as I have done. 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 113 
 
 1. Orthodox Jews who refuse to believe that Jesus is 
 the Christ. Not saved. 
 
 2. Jews who observe the law ; believe Jesus to be the 
 Christ ; bat who insist on the observance of the law by 
 Gentile converts. Not saved. 
 
 3. Jews who observe the law ; believe Jesus to be the 
 Christ, and hold that Gentile converts need not observe 
 the law. Saved (in Justin's opinion ; but some of his fel- 
 low-Christians think the contrary). 
 
 4. Gentile converts to the belief in Jesus as the Christ, 
 who observe the law. Saved (possibly). 
 
 5. Gentile believers in Jesus as the Christ, who do 
 not observe the law themselves (except so far as the re- 
 fusal of idol sacrifices), but do not consider those who do 
 observe it heretics. Saved (this is Justin's own view). 
 
 6. Gentile believers who do not observe the law ex- 
 cept in refusing idol sacrifices, and hold those who do 
 observe it to be heretics. Saved. 
 
 7. Gentiles who believe Jesus to be the Christ and 
 call themselves Christians, but who eat meats sacrificed 
 to idols. Not saved. 
 
 8. Gentiles who disbelieve in Jesus as the Christ. 
 Not saved. 
 
 Justin does not consider Christians who believe in the 
 natural birth of Jesus, of whom he implies that there is a 
 respectable minority, to be heretics, though he himself 
 strongly holds the preternatural birth of Jesus and his 
 pre-existence as the " Logos " or " Word." He conceives 
 the Logos to be a second God, inferior to the first, un- 
 knowable, God, with respect to whom Justin, like Philo, 
 is a complete agnostic. The Holy Spirit is not regarded 
 by Justin as a separate personality, and is often mixed up 
 with the " Logos." The doctrine of the natural immor- 
 
114: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 tality of the soul is, for Justin, a heresy ; and he is as 
 firm a believer in the resurrection of the body as in the 
 speedy second coming and the establishment of the mil- 
 lennium. 
 
 This pillar of the Church in the middle of the second 
 century — a much-traveled native of Samaria — was cer- 
 tainly well acquainted with Rome, probably with Alex- 
 andria, and it is likely that he knew the state of opinion 
 throughout the length and breadth of the Christian world 
 as well as any man of his time. If the various categories 
 above enumerated are arranged in a series thus — 
 
 Orthodox Juda&o- Christianity. Idolothytic 
 
 Judaism. ^ — ■ -* «. Christianity. Paganism. 
 
 I II III IV V VI VII ' VIII 
 
 it is obvious that they form a gradational series from or- 
 thodox Judaism, on the extreme left, to paganism, 
 whether philosophic or popular, on the extreme right ; 
 and it will further be observed that, while Justin's con- 
 ception of Christianity is very broad, he rigorously ex- 
 cludes two classes of persons who, in his time, called 
 themselves Christians; namely, those who insist on cir- 
 cumcision and other observances of the law on the part 
 of Gentile converts ; that is to say, the strict Judaeo- 
 Christians (II), and on the other hand, those who assert 
 the lawfulness of eating meat offered to idols — whether 
 they are gnostics or not (VII). These last I have called 
 " idolothytic " Christians, because I can not devise a bet- 
 ter name, not because it is strictly defensible etymologi- 
 cally. 
 
 At the present moment I do not suppose there is an 
 English missionary in any heathen land who would 
 trouble himself whether the materials of his dinner had 
 been previously offered to idols or not. On the other 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 115 
 
 hand, I suppose there is no Protestant sect within the 
 pale of orthodoxy, to say nothing of the Roman and 
 Greek Churches, which would hesitate to declare the 
 practice of circumcision and the observance of the Jewish 
 Sabbath and dietary rules, shockingly heretical. 
 
 Modem Christianity has, in fact, not only shifted far 
 to the right of Justin's position, but it is of much nar- 
 rower compass. 
 
 Justin. 
 
 Judoso- Christianity. Modern Christianity. Paganism. 
 
 Judaism. ^ — ^ I 
 
 I II III IV V VI VII VIII 
 
 For, though it includes YII, and even, in saint and relic 
 worship, cuts a " monstrous cantle " out of paganism, it 
 excludes, not only all Judseo-Christians, but all who doubt 
 that such are heretics. Ever since the thirteenth century, 
 the Inquisition would have cheerfully burned, and in 
 Spain did abundantly burn, all persons who came under 
 the categories II, III, IV, V. And the wolf would play 
 the same havoc now if it could only get its blood-stained 
 jaws free from the muzzle imposed by the secular arm. 
 
 Further, there is not a Protestant body except the 
 Unitarian, which would not declare Justin himself a her- 
 etic, on account of his doctrine of the inferior godship 
 of the Logos ; while I am very much afraid that, in strict 
 logic, Dr. Wace would be under the necessity, so painful 
 to him, of calling him an " infidel," on the same and on 
 Other grounds. 
 
 Now let us turn to our other authority. If there is 
 any result of critical investigations of the sources of 
 Christianity which is certain,* it is that Paul of Tarsus 
 
 * I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four car- 
 dinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered with. See 
 note on page 112. 
 
116 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 wrote the Epistle to the Galatians somewhere between 
 the years 55 and 60 a. d., that is to say, roughly, twenty, 
 or five-and-twenty, years after the crucifixion. If this is 
 so, the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the oldest, if not 
 the very oldest, of extant documentary evidences of the 
 state of the primitive Church. And, be it observed, if it 
 is Paul's writing, it unquestionably furnishes us with the 
 evidence of a participator in the transactions narrated. 
 With the exception of two or three of the other Pauline 
 epistles, there is not one solitary book in the New Testa- 
 ment of the authorship and authority of which we have 
 such good evidence. 
 
 And what is the state of things we find disclosed ? A 
 bitter quarrel, in his account of which Paul by no means 
 minces matters or hesitates to hurl defiant sarcasms against 
 those who were " reputed to be pillars " : James, " the 
 brother of the Lord," Peter, the rock on whom Jesus is 
 said to have built his Church, and John, "the beloved 
 disciple." And no deference toward " the rock " with- 
 holds Paul from charging Peter to his face with "dis- 
 simulation." 
 
 The subject of the hot dispute was simply this : Were 
 Gentile converts bound to obey the law or not? Paul 
 answered in the negative ; and, acting upon his opinion, 
 had created at Antioch (and elsewhere) a specifically 
 " Christian " community, the sole qualifications for ad- 
 mission into which were the confession of the belief that 
 Jesus was the Messiah, and baptism upon that confession. 
 In the epistle in question, Paul puts this — his " gospel," 
 as he calls it — in its most extreme form. Not only does 
 he deny the necessity of conformity with the law, but he 
 declares such conformity to have a negative value. " Be- 
 hold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye receive circumcis- 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 117 
 
 ion, Christ will profit you nothing " (Galatians v, 2). He 
 calls the legal observances "beggarly rudiments," and 
 anathematizes every one who preaches to the Galatians 
 any other gospel than his own — that is to say, by direct 
 consequence, he anathematizes the Jerusalem Nazarenes 
 whose zeal for the law is testified by James in a passage 
 of the Acts cited further on. In the first Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, dealing with the question of eating meat 
 offered to idols, it is clear that Paul himself thinks it a 
 matter of indifference ; but he advises that it should not 
 be done, for the sake of the weaker brethren. On the 
 other hand, the E~azarenes of Jerusalem most strenuously 
 opposed Paul's " gospel," insisting on every convert be- 
 coming a regular Jewish proselyte, and consequently on 
 his observance of the whole law ; and this party was led 
 by James and Peter and John (Galatians ii, 9). Paul 
 does not suggest that the question of principle was set- 
 tled by the discussion referred to in Galatians. All he 
 says is that it ended in the practical agreement that he 
 and Barnabas should do as they had been doing in respect 
 of the Gentiles ; while James and Peter and John should 
 deal in their own fashion with Jewish converts. After- 
 ward he complains bitterly of Peter, because, when on a 
 visit to Antioch, he at first inclined to Paul's view, and ate 
 with the Gentile converts ; but when " certain came from 
 James," " drew back, and separated himself, fearing them 
 that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews 
 dissembled likewise with him ; insomuch that even Bar- 
 nabas was carried away with their dissimulation " (Gala- 
 tians ii, 12, 13). 
 
 There is but one conclusion to be drawn from Paul's 
 account of this famous dispute, the settlement of which 
 determined the fortunes of the nascent religion. It is 
 
118 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 that the disciples at Jerusalem, headed by " James, the 
 Lord's brother," and by the leading apostles, Peter and 
 John, were strict Jews, who objected to admit any con- 
 verts to their body, unless these, either by birth or by be- 
 coming proselytes, were also strict Jews. In fact, the 
 sole difference between James and Peter and John, with 
 the body of disciples whom they led, and the Jews by 
 whom they were surrounded, and with whom they for 
 many years shared the religious observances of the Tem- 
 ple, was that they believed that the Messiah, whom the 
 leaders of the nation yet looked for, had already come in 
 the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles is hardly a very trustworthy 
 history ; it is certainly of later date than the Pauline epis- 
 tles, supposing them to be genuine. And the writer's 
 version of the conference of which Paul gives so graphic 
 a description, if that is correct, is unmistakably colored 
 with all the art of a reconciler, anxious to cover up a scan- 
 dal. But it is none the less instructive on this account. 
 The judgment of the " council " delivered by James is 
 that the Gentile converts shall merely " abstain from 
 things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things 
 strangled, and from fornication." Eut notwithstanding 
 the accommodation in which the writer of the Acts would 
 have us believe, the Jerusalem church held to its endeavor 
 to retain the observance of the law. Long after the con- 
 ference, some time after the writing of the Epistles to the 
 Galatians and Corinthians, and immediately after the dis- 
 patch of that to the Romans, Paul makes his last visit to 
 Jerusalem, and presents himself to James and all the eld- 
 ers. And this is what the Acts tells us of the interview : 
 
 And they said unto him, Thon seest, brother, how many thou- 
 sands (or myriads) there are among the Jews of them which have 
 
AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 119 
 
 believed ; and they are all zealous for the law : and they have been 
 informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are 
 among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circum- 
 cise their children, neither to walk after the customs (Acts xxi, 
 20, 21). 
 
 They therefore request that he should perform a certain 
 public religious act in the Temple, in order that 
 
 all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they 
 have been informed concerning thee ; but that thou thyself walkest 
 orderly, keeping the law (ibid., 24). 
 
 How far Paul could do what he is here requested to 
 do, and which the writer of the Acts goes on to say he 
 did, with a clear conscience, if he wrote the epistles to the 
 Galatians and Corinthians, I may leave any candid reader 
 of those epistles to decide. The point to which I wish 
 to direct attention is the declaration that the Jerusalem 
 church, led by the brother of Jesus and by his personal 
 disciples and friends, twenty years and more after his 
 death, consisted of strict and zealous Jews. 
 
 Tertullus, the orator, caring very little about the in- 
 ternal dissensions of the followers of Jesus, speaks of 
 Paul as a " ringleader of the sect of the JSazarenes " (Acts 
 xxiv, 5), which must have affected James much in the 
 same way as it would have moved the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, in George Fox's day, to hear the latter called 
 a " ringleader of the sect of Anglicans." In fact, " Naz- 
 arene " was, as is well known, the distinctive appellation 
 applied to Jesus ; his immediate followers were known as 
 Nazarenes, while the congregation of the disciples, and, 
 later, of converts at Jerusalem — the Jerusalem church — 
 was emphatically the " sect of the Nazarenes," no more in 
 itself to be regarded as anything outside Judaism than 
 
120 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 the sect of the Sadducees or of the Essenes.* In fact, the 
 tenets of both the Sadducees and the Essenes diverged 
 much more widely from the Pharisaic standard of ortho- 
 doxy than JSTazarenism did. 
 
 Let us consider the position of affairs now (a. d. 50- 
 60) in relation to that which obtained in Justin's time, a 
 century later. It is plain that the Nazarenes — presided 
 over by James " the brother of the Lord," and comprising 
 within their body all the twelve apostles — belonged to 
 Justin's second category of " Jews who observe the law, 
 believe Jesus to be the Christ, but who insist on the ob- 
 servance of the law by Gentile converts," up till the time 
 at which the controversy reported by Paul arose. They 
 then, according to Paul, simply allowed him to form his 
 congregation of non-legal Gentile converts at Antioch and 
 elsewhere ; and it would seem that it was to these con- 
 verts, who would come under Justin's fifth category, that 
 the title of " Christian " was first applied. If any of 
 these Christians had acted upon the more than half -per- 
 mission given by Paul, and had eaten meats offered to 
 idols, they would have belonged to Justin's seventh cate- 
 gory. 
 
 Hence, it appears that, if Justin's opinion, which was 
 doubtless that of the Church generally in the middle of 
 the second century, was correct, James and Peter and 
 John and their followers could not be saved; neither 
 could Paul, if he carried into practice his views as to the 
 indifference of eating meats offered to idols. Or, to put 
 the matter another way, the center of gravity of ortho- 
 doxy, which is at the extreme right of the series in the 
 nineteenth century, was at the extreme left, just before 
 
 * All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years 
 ago. See "Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche " (1850), p. 108. 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER, 121 
 
 the middle of the first century, when the " sect of the 
 JSTazarenes " constituted the whole church founded by 
 Jesus and the apostles ; while, in the time of Justin, it 
 lay midway between the two. It is therefore a profound 
 mistake to imagine that the Judaeo-Christians (J^azarenes 
 and Ebionites) of later times were heretical outgrowths 
 from a primitive, universalist " Christianity." On the 
 contrary, the universalist " Christianity " is an outgrowth 
 from the primitive, purely Jewish, Nazarenism ; which, 
 gradually eliminating all the ceremonial and dietary parts 
 of the Jewish law, has thrust aside its parent, and all the 
 intermediate stages of its development, into the position 
 of damnable heresies. 
 
 Such being the case, we are in a position to form a 
 safe judgment of the limits within which the teaching of 
 Jesus of Nazareth must have been confined. Ecclesias- 
 tical authority would have us believe that the words which 
 are given at the end of the first Gospel, " Go ye, there- 
 fore, and makes disciples of all the nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
 the Holy Ghost," are part of the last commands of Jesus, 
 issued at the moment of his parting with the eleven. If 
 so, Peter and John must have heard these words ; they 
 are too plain to be misunderstood; and the occasion is 
 too solemn for them to be ever forgotten. Yet the 
 " Acts " tells us that Peter needed a vision to enable him 
 so much as to baptize Cornelius ; and Paul, in the Gala- 
 tians, knows nothing of words which would have com- 
 pletely borne him out as against those who, though they 
 heard, must be supposed to have either forgotten or ig- 
 nored them. On the other hand, Peter and John, who 
 are supposed to have heard the " Sermon on the Mount," 
 know nothing of the saying that Jesus had not come to 
 6 
 
122 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 destroy the law, but that every jot and tittle of the law 
 must be fulfilled, which surely would have been pretty 
 good evidence for their view of the question. 
 
 We are sometimes told that the personal friends and 
 daily companions of Jesus remained zealous Jews and 
 opposed Paul's innovations, because they were hard of 
 heart and dull of comprehension. This hypothesis is 
 hardly in accordance with the concomitant faith of those 
 who adopt it, in the miraculous insight and superhuman 
 sagacity of their Master ; nor do I see any way of getting 
 it to harmonize with the other orthodox postulate ; name- 
 ly, that Matthew was the author of the first Gospel and 
 John of the fourth. If that is so, then, most assuredly, 
 Matthew was no dullard ; and as for the fourth Gospel — 
 a theosophic romance of the first order — it could have 
 been written by none but a man of remarkable literary 
 capacity, who had drunk deep of Alexandrian philosophy. 
 Moreover, the doctrine of the writer of the fourth Gos- 
 pel is more remote from that of the " sect of the Naza- 
 renes " than is that of Paul himself. I am quite aware 
 that orthodox critics have been capable of maintaining 
 that John, the Nazarene, who was probably well past 
 fifty years of age when he is supposed to have written 
 the most thoroughly Judaizing book in the New Testa- 
 ment—the Apocalypse — in the roughest of Greek, un- 
 derwent an astounding metamorphosis of both doc- 
 trine and style by the time he reached the ripe age 
 of ninety or so, and provided the world with a his- 
 tory in which the acutest critic can not make out 
 where the speeches of Jesus end and the text of the 
 narrative begins; while that narrative is utterly irrecon- 
 cilable in regard to matters of fact with that of his fel- 
 low-apostle, Matthew. 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 123 
 
 The end of the whole matter is this : The " sect of the 
 Nazarenes," the brother and the immediate followers of 
 Jesus, commissioned by him as apostles, and those who 
 were taught by them up to the year 50 a. d., were not 
 " Christians " in the sense in which that term has been 
 understood ever since its asserted origin at Antioch, but 
 Jews — strict orthodox Jews — whose belief in the Mes- 
 siahship of Jesus never led to their exclusion from the 
 Temple .services, nor would have shut them out from the 
 wide embrace of Judaism.* The open proclamation of 
 their special view about the Messiah was doubtless offens- 
 ive to the Pharisees, just as rampant Low Churchism is 
 offensive to bigoted High Churchism in our own country ; 
 or as any kind of dissent is offensive to fervid religionists 
 of all creeds. To the Sadducees, no doubt, the political 
 danger of any Messianic movement was serious, and they 
 would have been glad to put down JSTazarenism, lest it 
 should end in useless rebellion against their Roman mas- 
 ters, like that other Galilean movement headed by Judas, 
 a generation earlier. Galilee was always a hot-bed of 
 seditious enthusiasm against the rule of Rome ; and high 
 priest and procurator alike had need to keep a sharp eye 
 upon natives of that district. On the whole, however, the 
 ^N~azarenes were but little troubled for the first twenty 
 years of their existence ; and the undying hatred of the 
 Jews against those later converts whom they regarded as 
 apostates and f autors of a sham Judaism was awakened by 
 Paul. From their point of view, he was a mere renegade 
 Jew, opposed alike to orthodox Judaism and to orthodox 
 jSTazarenism, and whose teachings threatened Judaism 
 
 * " If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to be 
 the Messiah, the first Christians can have been aware of no other essential 
 differences from the Jews."— Zeller, " Vortrage " (1865), p. 216. 
 
124: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 with destruction. And, from their point of view, they 
 were quite right. In the course of a century, Pauline in- 
 fluences had a large share in driving primitive Nararenism 
 from being the very heart of the new faith into the posi- 
 tion of scouted error ; and the spirit of Paul's doctrine 
 continued its work of driving Christianity further and 
 further away from Judaism, until "meats offered to 
 idols " might be eaten without scruple, while the Naza- 
 rene methods of observing even the Sabbath or the Pass- 
 over were branded with the mark of Judaizing heresy. 
 
 But if the primitive Nazarenes of whom the Acts 
 speaks were orthodox Jews, what sort of probability can 
 there be that Jesus was anything else ? How can he have 
 founded the universal religion which was not heard of till 
 twenty years after his death ? * That Jesus possessed in 
 a rare degree the gift of attaching men to his person and 
 to his fortunes ; that he was the author of many a striking 
 saying, and the advocate of equity, of love, and of humil- 
 ity ; that he may have disregarded the subtleties of the 
 bigots for legal observance, and appealed rather to those 
 noble conceptions of religion which constituted the pith 
 and kernel of the teaching of the great prophets of his 
 nation seven hundred years earlier ; and that, in the last 
 scenes of his career, he may have embodied the ideal suf- 
 ferer of Isaiah — may be, as I think it is, extremely prob- 
 able. But all this involves not a step beyond the borders 
 of orthodox Judaism. Again, who is to say whether Jesus 
 proclaimed himself the veritable Messiah, expected by his 
 
 * Dr. Harnack, in the lately published second edition of his " Dog- 
 mengeschichte," says (p. 39), " Jesus Christ brought forward no new doc- 
 trine"; and again (p. 65), "It is not difficult to set against every portion 
 of the utterances of Jesus an observation which deprives him of original- 
 ity." See also Zusatz 4, on the same page. 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 125 
 
 nation since the appearance of the pseudo-prophetic work 
 of Daniel, a century and a half before his time; or 
 whether the enthusiasm of his followers gradually forced 
 him to assume that position ? 
 
 But one thing is quite certain : if that belief in the 
 speedy second coming of the Messiah which was shared 
 by all parties in the primitive Church, whether Nazarene 
 or Pauline ; which Jesus is made to prophesy, over and 
 over again, in the synoptic Gospels ; and which dominated 
 the life of Christians during the first century after the 
 crucifixion— if he believed and taught that, then assuredly 
 he was under an illusion, and he is responsible for that 
 which the mere efluxion of time has demonstrated to be 
 a prodigious error. 
 
 "When I ventured to doubt " whether any Protestant 
 theologian who has a reputation to lose will say that he 
 believes the Gadarene story," it appears that I reckoned 
 without Dr. "Wace, who, referring to this passage in my 
 paper, says : 
 
 He will judge whether I fall under his description ; but I repeat 
 that I believe it, and that he has removed the only objection to my 
 believing it.* 
 
 Far be it from me to set myself up as a judge of any 
 such delicate question as that put before me ; but I think 
 I may venture to express the conviction that, in the mat- 
 ter of courage, Dr. Wace has raised for himself a monu- 
 ment cere jperennius. For, really, in my poor judgment, 
 a certain splendid intrepidity, such as one admires in the 
 leader of a forlorn hope, is manifested by Dr. Wace, when 
 he solemnly affirms that he believes the Gadarene story 
 
 * Page 16. 
 
126 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 on the evidence offered. I feel less complimented per- 
 haps than I ought to do, when I am told that I have been 
 an accomplice in extinguishing in Dr. Wace's mind the 
 last glimmer of doubt which common sense may have 
 suggested. In fact, I must disclaim all responsibility for 
 the use to which the information I supplied has been put. 
 I formally decline to admit that the expression of my ig- 
 norance whether devils, in the existence of which I do 
 not believe, if they did exist, might or might not be made 
 to go out of men into pigs, can, as a matter of logic, have 
 been of any use whatever to a person who already be- 
 lieved in devils and in the historical accuracy of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Of the Gadarene story, Dr. Wace, with all solemnity 
 and twice over, affirms that he " believes it." I am sorry 
 to trouble him further, but what does he mean by 
 " it" ? Because there are two stories, one in " Mark" and 
 " Luke," and the other in " Matthew." In the former, 
 which I quoted in my previous paper, there is one pos- 
 sessed man ; in the latter there are two. The story is 
 told fully, with the vigorous, homely diction and the 
 picturesque details of a piece of folk-lore, in the second 
 Gospel. The immediately antecedent event is the storm 
 on the Lake of Gennesareth. The immediately conse- 
 quent events are the message from the ruler of the syna- 
 gogue and the healing of the woman with an issue of 
 blood. In the third Gospel, the order of events is exactly 
 the same, and there is an extremely close general and 
 verbal correspondence between the narratives of the mira- 
 cle. Both agree in stating that there was only one pos- 
 sessed man, and that he was the residence of many devils, 
 whose name was " Legion." 
 
 In the first Gospel, the event which immediately pre- 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 127 
 
 cedes the Gadarene affair is, as before, the storm ; the 
 message from the ruler and the healing of the issue are 
 separated from it by the accounts of the healing of a 
 paralytic, of the calling of Matthew, and of a discussion 
 with some Pharisees. Again, while the second Gospel 
 speaks of the country of the " Gerasenes " as the locality 
 of the event, the third Gospel has " Gerasenes," " Gerge- 
 senes," and " Gadarenes " in different ancient MSS. ; 
 while the first has " Gadarenes." 
 
 The really important points to be noticed, however, 
 in the narrative of the first Gospel, are these — that there 
 are two possessed men instead of one ; and that while the 
 story is abbreviated by omissions, what there is of it is 
 often verbally identical with the corresponding passages 
 in the other two Gospels. The most unabashed of recon- 
 cilers can not well say that one man is the same as two, 
 or two as one ; and, though the suggestion really has been 
 made, that two different miracles, agreeing in all essential 
 particulars, except the number of the possessed, were 
 effected immediately after the storm on the lake, I should 
 be sony to accuse any one of seriously adopting it. Nor 
 will it be pretended that the allegory refuge is accessible 
 in this particular case. 
 
 So, when Dr. Wace says that he believes in the syn- 
 optic evangelists' account of the miraculous bedevilment 
 of swine, I may fairly ask which of them does he believe ? 
 Does he hold by the one evangelist's story, or by that of 
 the two evangelists % And having made his election, what 
 reasons has he to give for his choice ? If it is suggested 
 that the witness of two is to be taken against that of one, 
 not only is the testimony dealt with in that common- 
 sense fashion against which theologians of his school pro- 
 test so warmly ; not only is all question of inspiration at 
 
128 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 an end, but the further inquiry arises, after all, is it the 
 testimony of two against one ? Are the authors of the 
 versions in the second and the third Gospels really inde- 
 pendent witnesses ? In order to answer this question, it 
 is only needful to place the English versions of the two 
 side by side, and compare them carefully. It will then be 
 seen that the coincidences between them, not merely in 
 substance, but in arrangement, and in the use of identical 
 words in the same order, are such, that only two alterna- 
 tives are conceivable : either one evangelist freely copied 
 from the other, or both based themselves upon a common 
 source, which may either have been a written document, 
 or a definite oral tradition learned by heart. Assuredly 
 these two testimonies are not those of independent wit- 
 nesses. Further, when the narrative in the first Gospel 
 is compared with that in the other two, the same fact 
 comes out. 
 
 Supposing, then, that Dr. Wace is right in his assump- 
 tion that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote the works 
 which we find attributed to them by tradition, what is the 
 value of their agreement, even that something more or 
 less like this particular miracle occurred, since it is de- 
 monstrable, either that all depend on some antecedent 
 statement, of the authorship of which nothing is known, 
 or that two are dependent upon the third ? 
 
 Dr. Wace says he believes the Gadarene story ; which- 
 ever version of it he accepts, therefore, he believes that 
 Jesus said what he is stated in all the versions to have 
 said, and thereby virtually declared that the theory of 
 the nature of the spiritual world involved in the story is 
 true. Now I hold that this theory is false, that it is a 
 monstrous and mischievous fiction ; and I unhesitatingly 
 express my disbelief in any assertion that it is true, by 
 
AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER. 129 
 
 whomsoever made. So that, if Dr. Wace is right in his 
 belief, he is also quite right in classing me among the 
 people he calls " infidels " ; and. although I can not 
 fulfill the eccentric expectation of the Bishop of Peter- 
 borough, that I shall glory in a title which, from my 
 point of view, it would be simply silly to adopt, I certainly 
 shall rejoice not to be reckoned among the bishop's " us 
 Christians " so long as the profession of belief in such 
 stories as the Gadarene pig affair, on the strength of a 
 tradition of unknown origin, of which two discrepant 
 reports, also of unknown origin, alone remain, forms any 
 part of the Christian faith. And, although I have, more 
 than once, repudiated the gift of prophecy, yet I think I 
 may venture to express the anticipation, that if " Chris- 
 tians " generally are going to follow the line taken by the 
 Bishop of Peterborough and Dr. Wace, it will not be 
 long before all men of common sense qualify for a place 
 among the " infidels." 
 
VI, 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 By HENRY WACE, D. D. 
 
 Headers who may be willing to look at this further 
 reply on my part to Prof. Huxley need not be appre- 
 hensive of being entangled in any such obscure points of 
 church history as those with which the professor has 
 found it necessary to perplex them in support of his con- 
 tentions; still less of being troubled with any personal 
 explanations. The tone which Prof. Huxley has thought 
 fit to adopt, not only toward myself, but toward English 
 theologians in general, excuses me from taking further 
 notice of any personal considerations in the matter. I 
 endeavored to treat him with the respect due to his great 
 scientific position, and he replies by sneering at " theolo- 
 gians who are mere counsel for creeds," saying that the 
 serious question at issue " is whether theological men of 
 science, or theological special pleaders, are to have the 
 confidence of the general public," observing that Holland 
 and Germany are " the only two countries in which, at 
 the present time, professors of theology are to be found 
 whose tenure of their posts does not depend upon the 
 result to which their inquiries lead them," and thus in- 
 sinuating that English theologians are debarred by selfish 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM, 131 
 
 interests from candid inquiry. I shall presently have 
 something to say on the grave misrepresentation of Ger- 
 man theology which these insinuations involve ; but for 
 myself and for English theologians I shall not condescend 
 to reply to them. I content myself with calling the read- 
 er's attention to the fact that, in this controversy, it is 
 Prof. Huxley who finds it requisite for his argument to 
 insinuate that his opponents are biased by sordid motives ; 
 and I shall for the future leave him and his sneers out of 
 account, and simply consider his arguments for as much, 
 or as little, as they may be worth. For a similar reason 
 I shall confine myself as far as possible to the issue which 
 I raised at the Church Congress, and for which I then 
 made myself responsible. I do not care, nor would it be 
 of any avail, to follow over the wide and sacred field of 
 Christian evidences an antagonist who resorts to the im- 
 putation of mean motives, and who, as I shall show, will 
 not face the witnesses to whom he himself appeals. The 
 manner in which Prof. Huxley has met the particular 
 issue he challenged will be a sufficient illustration to im- 
 partial minds of the value which is to be attached to any 
 further assaults which he may make upon the Christian 
 position. 
 
 Let me then briefly remind the reader of the simple 
 question which is at issue between us. "What I alleged 
 was that u an agnosticism which knows nothing of the 
 relation of man to God must not only refuse belief to our 
 Lord's most undoubted teaching, but must deny the real- 
 ity of the spiritual convictions in which he lived and 
 died." As evidence of that teaching and of those con- 
 victions I appealed to three testimonies — the Sermon on 
 the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the story of the Pas- 
 sion — and I urged that whatever critical opinion might 
 
132 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 be held respecting the origin and structure of the four 
 Gospels, there could not be any reasonable doubt that 
 those testimonies "afford a true account of our Lord's 
 essential belief and cardinal teaching." In his original 
 reply, instead of meeting this appeal to three specific testi- 
 monies, Prof. Huxley shifted the argument to the ques- 
 tion of the general credibility of the Gospels, and appealed 
 to " the main results of biblical criticism, as they are set 
 forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Yolkmar." 
 He referred to these supposed " results " in support of his 
 assertion that we know " absolutely nothing " of the au- 
 thorship or genuineness of the four Gospels, and he chal- 
 lenged my reference to Renan as a witness to the fact 
 that criticism has established no such results. In answer, 
 I quoted passage after passage from Renan and from 
 Reuss showing that the results at which they had arrived 
 were directly contradictory of Prof. Huxley's assertions. 
 How does he meet this evidence ? He simply says, in a 
 foot-note, " For the present I must content myself with 
 warning my readers against any reliance upon Dr. Wace's 
 statements as to the results arrived at by modern criti- 
 cism. They are as gravely as surprisingly erroneous." I 
 might ask by what right Prof. Huxley thus presumes to 
 pronounce, as it were ex cathedra, without adducing any 
 evidence, that the statements of another writer are " sur- 
 prisingly erroneous " ? But I in my turn content myself 
 with pointing out that, if my quotations from Renan and 
 Reuss had been incorrect, he could not only have said so, 
 but could have produced the correct quotations. But he 
 does not deny, as of course he can not, that Reuss, for 
 example, really states, as the mature result of his investi- 
 gations, what I quoted from him respecting St. Luke's 
 Gospel, namely, that it was written by St. Luke and has 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 133 
 
 reached us in its primitive form, and, further, that St. 
 Luke used a book written by St. Mark, the disciple of St. 
 Peter, and that this book in all probability comprised in 
 its primitive form what we read in the present day from 
 Mark i, 21, to xiii, 37. These are the results of modern 
 criticism as stated by a biblical critic in whom Prof. Hux- 
 ley expressed special confidence. It was not therefore 
 my statements of the results of biblical criticism with 
 which Prof. Huxley was confronted, but Reuss's state- 
 ments ; and, unless he can show that my quotation was a 
 false one, he ought to have had the candor to acknowledge 
 that Reuss, at least, is on these vital points dead against 
 him. Instead of any such frank admission, he endeavors 
 to explain away the force of his reference to Reuss. It 
 may, he says, be well for him 
 
 to observe that approbation of the manner in which a great biblical 
 scholar — for instance, Reuss — does his work does not commit me to 
 the adoption of all, or indeed of any, of his views ; and, further, that 
 the disagreements of a series of investigators do not in any way in- 
 terfere with the fact that each of them has made important con- 
 tributions to the body of truth ultimately established. 
 
 But I beg to observe that Prof. Huxley did not ap- 
 peal to Eeuss's methods, but to Reuss's results. He said 
 that no retractation by M. Penan would sensibly affect 
 " the main results of hiblical criticism as they are set 
 forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Yolk- 
 mar." I have given him the results as set forth by 
 Reuss in Reuss's own words, and all he has to offer in re- 
 ply is an ipse dixit in a foot-note and an evasion in the 
 text of his article. 
 
 But, as I said, this general discussion respecting the 
 authenticity and credibility of the Gospels was an evasion 
 of my argument, which rested upon the specific testimony 
 
134 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the 
 narrative of the Passion ; and, accordingly, in his present 
 rejoinder Prof. Huxley, with much protestation that he 
 made no evasion, addressed himself to these three points. 
 And what is his answer % I feel obliged to characterize 
 it as another evasion, and in one particular an evasion of 
 a flagrant kind. The main point of his argument is that 
 from various circumstances, which I will presently notice 
 more particularly, there is much reason to doubt whether 
 the Sermon on the Mount was ever actually delivered in 
 the form in which it is recorded in St. Matthew. He 
 notices, for instance, the combined similarity and differ- 
 ence between St. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and 
 St. Luke's so-called " Sermon on the Plain," and then he 
 adds: 
 
 I thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent students of the 
 Gospels, to say nothing of theologians of reputation, knew these 
 things. But how can any one who does know them have the con- 
 science to ask whether there is " any reasonable doubt " that the 
 Sermon on the Mount was preached by Jesus of Nazareth? 
 
 It is a pity that Prof. Huxley seems as incapable of 
 accuracy in his quotations of an opponent's words as in 
 his references to the authorities to whom he appeals. I 
 did not ask " whether there is any reasonable doubt that 
 the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Jesus of 
 Nazareth," and I expressly observed, in the article to 
 which Prof. Huxley is replying, that "Prof. Peuss 
 thinks, as many good critics have thought, that the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount combines various distinct utterances 
 of our Lord." What I did ask, in words which Prof. 
 Huxley quotes, and therefore had before his eyes, was 
 " whether there is any reasonable doubt that the Lord's 
 Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount afford a true ac- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM, 135 
 
 count of our Lord's essential belief and cardinal teaching." 
 That is an absolutely distinct question from the one which 
 Prof. Huxley dissects, and a confusion of the two is pecul- 
 iarly inexcusable in a person who holds that purely human 
 view of the Gospel narratives which he represents. If a 
 long report of a speech appears in the " Times " and a 
 shortened report appears in the " Standard," every one 
 knows that we are none the less made acquainted — per- 
 haps made still better acquainted — with the essential pur- 
 port and cardinal meaning of the speaker. On the sup- 
 position, similarly, that St. Matthew and St. Luke are 
 simply giving two distinct accounts of the same address, 
 with such omissions and variations of order as suited the 
 purposes of their respective narratives, we are in at least 
 as good a position for knowing what was the main burden 
 of the address as if we had only one account, and perhaps 
 in a better position, as we see what were the points which 
 both reporters deemed essential. As Prof. Huxley him- 
 self observes, we have reports of speeches in ancient his- 
 torians which are certainly not in the very words of the 
 speakers ; yet no one doubts that we know the main pur- 
 port of the speeches of Pericles which Thucydides re- 
 cords. 
 
 This attempt, therefore, to answer my appeal to the 
 substance of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is 
 a palpable evasion, and it is aggravated by the manner in 
 which Prof. Huxley quotes a high German authority in 
 support of his contention. I am much obliged to him for 
 appealing to Holtzmann; for, though Holtzmann's own 
 conclusions respecting the books of the New Testament 
 seem to me often extravagantly skeptical and far-fetched, 
 and though I can not, therefore, quite agree with Prof. 
 Huxley that his " Lehrbuch " gives " a remarkably full 
 
136 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and fair account of the present results of criticism," yet I 
 agree that it gives on the whole a full and fair account of 
 the course of criticism and of the opinions of its chief 
 representatives. Instead, therefore, of imitating Prof. 
 Huxley, and pronouncing an ipse dixit as to the state of 
 criticism or the opinions of critics, I am very glad to be 
 able to refer to a book of which the authority is recog- 
 nized by him, and which will save both my readers and 
 myself from embarking on the wide and waste ocean of 
 the German criticism of the last fifty years. "Holtz- 
 mann, then," says Prof. Huxley in a note on page 104, 
 " has no doubt that the Sermon on the Mount is a com- 
 pilation, or, as he calls it in his recently published ' Lehr- 
 buch ' (p. 372), ' an artificial mosaic work.' " Now, let the 
 reader attend to what Holtzmann really says in the pas- 
 sage referred to. His words are : " In the so-called Ser- 
 mon on the Mount (Matt, v-vii) we find constructed, on 
 the basis of a real discourse of fundamental significance, 
 a skillfully articulated mosaic work." * The phrase was 
 not so long a one that Prof. Huxley need have omitted 
 the important words by which those he quotes are quali- 
 fied. Holtzmann recognizes, as will be seen, that a real 
 discourse of fundamental significance underlies the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount. That is enough for my purpose ; for 
 no reasonable person will suppose that the fundamental 
 significance of the real discourse has been entirely obliter- 
 ated, especially as the main purport of the sermon in St. 
 Luke is of the same character. But Prof. Huxley must 
 know perfectly well, as every one else does, that he would 
 be maintaining a paradox, in which every critic of repute, 
 
 * " In der sog. Bergpredigt, Mt. 5-7, gibt sich erne, auf Grund einer 
 wirklichen Rede von fundamentaler Bedeutung sich erhebende, kunstreich 
 gegliederte Mosaikarbeit." 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 137 
 
 to say nothing of every man of common sense, would be 
 against him, if he were to maintain that the Sermon on 
 the Mount does not give a substantially correct idea of 
 our Lord's teaching. But to admit this is to admit my 
 point, so he rides off on a side issue as to the question of 
 the precise form in which the sermon was delivered. 
 
 I must, however, take some notice of Prof. Huxley's 
 argument on this irrelevant issue, as it affords a striking 
 illustration of that superior method of ratiocination in 
 these matters on which he prides himself. I need not 
 trouble the reader much on the questions he raises as to 
 the relations of the first three Gospels. Any one who 
 cares to see a full and thorough discussion of that difficult 
 question, conducted with a complete knowledge of foreign 
 criticism on the subject, and at the same time marked by 
 the greatest lucidity and interest, may be referred to the 
 admirable " Introduction to the New Testament," by Dr. 
 Salmon, who, like Prof. Huxley, is a Fellow of the Royal 
 Society, arid who became eminent as one of the first 
 mathematicians of Europe before he became similarly 
 eminent as a theologian. I am content here to let Prof. 
 Huxley's assumptions pass, as I am only concerned to 
 illustrate the fallacious character of the reasoning he 
 founds upon them. He tells us, then, that — 
 
 there is now no doubt that the three synoptic Gospels, so far from 
 being the work of three independent writers, are closely interde- 
 pendent, and that in one of two ways. Either all three contain, 
 as their foundation, versions, to a large extent, verbally identical, 
 of one and the same tradition ; or two of them are thus closely de- 
 pendent on the third ; and the opinion of the majority of the best 
 critics has, of late years, more and more converged toward the con- 
 viction that our canonical second Gospel (the so-called "Mark's" 
 Gospel) is that which most closely represents the primitive ground- 
 work of the three. That I take to be one of the most valid results 
 
138 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 of New Testament criticism, of immeasurably greater importance 
 than the discussion about dates and authorship. But if, as I believe 
 to be the case beyond any rational doubt or dispute, the second 
 Gospel is the nearest extant representative of the oldest tradition, 
 whether written or oral, how comes it that it contains neither the 
 " Sermon on the Mount " nor the " Lord's Prayer," those typical 
 embodiments, according to Dr. Wace, of the M essential belief and 
 cardinal teaching " of Jesus ? 
 
 I "have quoted every word of this passage because I 
 am auxious for the reader to estimate the value of Prof. 
 Huxley's own statement of his case. It is, as he says, the 
 opinion of many critics of authority that a certain fixed 
 tradition, written or oral, was used by the writers of the 
 first three Gospels. In the first place, why this should 
 prevent those three Gospels from being the work of 
 "three independent writers" I am at a loss to conceive. 
 If Mr. Froude, the late Prof. Brewer, and the late Mr. 
 Green each use the Polls Calendars of the reign of Henry 
 YIII, I do not see that this abolishes their individuality. 
 Any historian who describes the Peloponnesian War uses 
 the memoirs of that war written by Thucydides; but 
 Bishop Thirlwall and Mr. Grote were, I presume, inde- 
 pendent writers. But to pass to a more important point, 
 that which is assumed is that the alleged tradition, writ- 
 ten or oral, was the groundwork of our first three Gos- 
 pels, and it is, therefore, older than they are. Let it be 
 granted, for the sake of argument. But how does this 
 prove that the tradition in question is "the oldest," so 
 that anything which was not in it is thereby discredited ? 
 It was, let us allow, an old tradition used by the writers 
 of the first three Gospels. But how does this fact raise 
 the slightest presumption against the probability that 
 there were other traditions equally old which they might 
 
CEEISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 139 
 
 use with equal justification so far as their scope required ? 
 Prof. Huxley alleges, and I do not care to dispute the 
 allegation, that the first three Gospels embody a certain 
 record older than themselves. But by what right does he 
 ask me to accept this as evidence, or as affording even the 
 slightest presumption, that there was no other ? Between 
 his allegation in one sentence that the second Gospel 
 " most closely represents the primitive groundwork of the 
 three," and his allegation, in the next sentence but one, 
 that " the second Gospel is the nearest extant representa- 
 tive of the oldest tradition," there is an absolute and 
 palpable non sequitur. It is a mere juggle of phrases, 
 and upon this juggle the whole of his subsequent argu- 
 ment on this point depends. St. Mark's Gospel may 
 very well represent the oldest tradition relative to the 
 common matter of the three, without, therefore, neces- 
 sarily representing " the oldest tradition " in such a sense 
 as to be a touchstone for all other reports of our Lord's 
 life. Prof. Huxley must know very well that from the 
 time of Schleiermacher many critics have believed in the 
 existence of another document containing a collection of 
 our Lord's discourses. Holtzmann concludes ("Lehr- 
 buch," page 376) that " under all the circumstances the 
 hypothesis of two sources offers the most probable solu- 
 tion of the synoptical problem " ; and it is surely incredi- 
 ble that no old traditions of our Lord's teaching should 
 have existed beyond those which are common to the three 
 Gospels. St. Luke, in fact, in that preface which Prof. 
 Huxley has no hesitation in using for his own purposes, 
 says that " many had taken in hand to set forth in order 
 a declaration of those things which are most surely be- 
 lieved among us " ; but Prof. Huxley asks us to assume 
 that none of these records were old, and none trustworthy, 
 
140 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 but that particular one which furnishes a sort of skeleton 
 to the first three Gospels. There is no evidence what- 
 ever, beyond Prof. Huxley's private judgment, for such 
 an assumption. Nay, he himself tells us that, according 
 to Holtzmann, it is at present a "burning question" 
 among critics " whether the relatively primitive narration 
 and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained in 
 Matthew or in Mark." * Yet while his own authority 
 tells him that this is a burning question, he treats it as 
 settled in favor of St. Mark, " beyond any rational doubt 
 or dispute," and employs this assumption as sufficiently 
 solid ground on which to rest his doubts of the genuine- 
 ness of the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer ! 
 But let us pass to another point in Prof. Huxley's 
 mode of argument. Let us grant, again, for the sake of 
 argument, his non sequitur that the second Gospel is the 
 nearest extant representative of the oldest tradition. 
 " How comes it," he asks, " that it contains neither the 
 Sermon on the Mount nor the Lord's Prayer?" Well, 
 that is a very interesting inquiry, which has, in point of 
 fact, often been considered by Christian divines; and 
 various answers are conceivable, equally reasonable and 
 sufficient. If it was St. Mark's object to record our 
 Lord's acts rather than his teaching, what right has Prof. 
 Huxley, from his purely human point of view, to find 
 fault with him ? If, from a Christian point of view, St. 
 Mark was inspired by a divine guidance to present the 
 most vivid, brief, and effective sketch possible of our 
 Lord's action as a Saviour, and for that purpose to leave 
 to another writer the description of our Lord as a teacher, 
 the phenomenon is not less satisfactorily explained. St. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 141 
 
 Mark, according to that tradition of the Church which 
 Prof. Huxley believes to be quite worthless, but which 
 his authority Holtzmann does not, was in great measure 
 the mouth-piece of St. Peter. Now, St. Peter is recorded 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, in his address to Cornelius, 
 as summing up our Lord's life in these words : " How 
 God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the -Holy Ghost 
 and with power, who went about doing good, and healing 
 all who were oppressed of the devil ; for God was with 
 him " ; and this is very much the point of view repre- 
 sented in St. Mark's Gospel. When, in fact, Prof. Hux- 
 ley asks, in answer to Holtzmann, who is again unfavor- 
 able to his views, " What conceivable motive could Mark 
 have for omitting it % " * the answers that arise are in- 
 numerable. Perhaps, as has been suggested, St. Mark 
 was more concerned with acts than words ; perhaps he 
 wanted to be brief ; perhaps he was writing for persons 
 who wanted one kind of record and not another ; and, 
 above all, perhaps it was not so much a question of 
 " omission " as of selection. It is really astonishing that 
 this latter consideration never seems to cross the mind of 
 Prof. Huxley and writers like him. The Gospels are 
 among the briefest biographies in the world. I have 
 sometimes thought that there is evidence of something 
 superhuman about them in the mere fact that, while 
 human biographers labor through volumes in order to 
 give us some idea of their subject, every one of the Gos- 
 pels, occupying no more than a chapter or two in length 
 of an ordinary biography, nevertheless gives us an image 
 of our Lord sufficiently vivid to have made him the living 
 companion of all subsequent generations. But if " the 
 
 * Page 104. 
 
142 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 gospel of Jesus Christ " was to be told within the com- 
 pass of the sixteen chapters of St. Mark, some selection 
 had to be made out of the mass of our Lord's words and 
 deeds as recorded by the tradition of those " who from 
 the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
 word." The very greatness and effectiveness of these 
 four Gospels consist in this wonderful power of selection, 
 like that by which a great artist depicts a character and a 
 figure in half a dozen touches ; and Prof. Huxley may, 
 perhaps, to put the matter on its lowest level, find out a 
 conceivable motive for St. Mark's omissions when he can 
 produce such an effective narrative as St. Mark's. As 
 St. John says at the end of his Gospel, " There are also 
 many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they 
 should be written every one, I suppose that even the 
 world itself could not contain the books that should be 
 written." So St. John, like St. Mark, had to make his 
 selection, and selection involves omission. 
 
 But, after all, I venture to ask whether anything can 
 be more preposterous than this supposition that because a 
 certain tradition is the oldest authority, therefore every 
 other authority is discredited ? Boswell writes a life of 
 Johnson ; therefore every record of Johnson's acts or 
 words which is not in Boswell is to be suspected. Car- 
 lyle writes a life of Sterling first, and Archdeacon Hare 
 writes one afterward ; therefore nothing in the archdea- 
 con's life is to be trusted which was not also in Carlyle's. 
 What seems to me so astonishing about Prof. Huxley's 
 articles is not the wildness of their conclusions, but the 
 rottenness of their ratiocination. To take another in- 
 stance : 
 
 Luke either knew the collection of loosely connected and apho- 
 ristic utterances which appear under the name of the " Sermon on 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 143 
 
 the Mount" in "Matthew," or he did not. If he did not, he must 
 have been ignorant of the existence of such a document as our ca- 
 nonical "Matthew," a fact which does not make for the genuine- 
 ness or the authority of that book. If he did, he has shown that 
 he does not care for its authority on a matter of fact of no small 
 importance ; and that does not permit us to conceive that he be- 
 lieved the first Gospel to be the work of an authority to whom he 
 ought to defer, let alone that of an apostolic eye-witness. 
 
 I pass by the description of the Sermon on the Mount 
 as a " collection of loosely connected utterances," though 
 it is a kind of begging of a very important question. But 
 supposing St. Luke to have been ignorant of the existence 
 of St. Matthew's Gospel, how does this reflect on the 
 genuineness of that book unless we know, as no one does, 
 that St. Matthew's Gospel was written before St. Luke's, 
 and sufficiently long before it to have become known to 
 him % Or, if he did know it, where is the disrespect to 
 its authority in his having given for his own purposes an 
 abridgment of that which St. Matthew gave more fully % 
 Prof. Huxley might almost seem dominated by the me- 
 chanical theory of inspiration which he denounces in his 
 antagonists. He writes as if there were something abso- 
 lutely sacred, neither to be altered nor added to, in the mere 
 words of some old authority of which he conceives him- 
 self to be in possession. Dr. Abbott, with admirable 
 labor, has had printed for him, in clear type, the words or 
 bits of words which are common to the first three Gos- 
 pels, and he seems immediately to adopt the anathema of 
 the book of Eevelation, and to proclaim to every man, 
 evangelists and apostles included, " if any man shall add 
 unto these things, . . . and if any man shall take away 
 from the words" of this " common tradition" of Dr. Ab- 
 bott, he shall be forthwith scientifically excommunicated. 
 
144: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 I venture to submit, as a mere matter of common sense, 
 that if three persons used one document, it is the height 
 of rashness to conclude that it contained nothing but 
 what they all three quote ; that it is not only possible but 
 probable that, while certain parts were used by all, each 
 may have used some parts as suitable to his own purpose 
 which the others did not find suitable to theirs ; and, last- 
 ly, that the fact of there having been one such document 
 in existence is so far from being evidence that there were 
 no others, that it even creates some presumption that 
 there were. In short, I must beg leave to represent, not 
 so much that Prof. Huxley's conclusions are wrong, but 
 that there is absolutely no validity in the reasoning by 
 which he endeavors to support them. It is not, in fact, 
 reasoning at all, but mere presumption and guess-work, 
 inconsistent, moreover, with all experience and common 
 sense. 
 
 Of course, if Prof. Huxley's quibbles against the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount go to pieces, so do his cavils at the 
 authenticity of the Lord's Prayer ; and, indeed, on these 
 two points I venture to think that the case for which I 
 was contending is carried by the mere fact that it seems 
 necessary to Prof. Huxley's position to dispute them. If 
 he can not maintain his ground without pushing his ag- 
 nosticism to such a length as to deny the substantial gen- 
 uineness of the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's 
 Prayer, I think he will be found to have allowed enough 
 to satisfy reasonable men that his case must be a bad one. 
 I shall not, therefore, waste more time on these points, as 
 I must say something on his strange treatment of the 
 third point in the evangelical records to which I referred, 
 the story of the Passion. It is really difficult to take seri- 
 ously what he says on this subject. He says : 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 145 
 
 I am not quite sure what Dr. Wace means by this — I am not 
 aware that any one (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) 
 has propounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion ; and cer- 
 tainly I have no inclination to argue about the precise accuracy of 
 every detail of that pathetic story of suffering and wrong. But if 
 Dr. Wace means, as I suppose he does, that that which, according 
 to the orthodox view, happened after the crucifixion, and which is, 
 in a dogmatic sense, the most important part of the story, is founded 
 on solid historical proofs, I must beg leave to express a diametrical- 
 ly opposite conviction. 
 
 Prof. Huxley is not quite sure what I mean by the 
 story of the Passion, but supposes I mean the story of the 
 resurrection ! It is barely credible that he can have sup- 
 posed anything of the kind ; but by this gratuitous sup- 
 position he has again evaded the issue I proposed to him, 
 and has shifted the argument to another topic, which, 
 however important in itself, is entirely irrelevant to the 
 particular point in question. If he really supposed that 
 when I said the Passion I meant the resurrection, it is 
 only another proof of his incapacity for strict argument, 
 at least on these subjects. I not only used the expression 
 " the story of the Passion," but I explicitly stated in my 
 reply to him for what purpose I appealed to it. I said 
 that "that story involves the most solemn attestation, 
 again and again, of truths of which an agnostic coolly 
 says he knows nothing " ; and I mentioned particularly 
 our Lord's final utterance, "Father, into thy hands I 
 commend my spirit," as conveying our Lord's attestation 
 in his death agony to his relation to God as his Father. 
 That exclamation is recorded by St. Luke ; but let me re- 
 mind the reader of what is recorded by St. Mark, upon 
 whom Prof. Huxley mainly relies. There we have the 
 account of the agony in Gethsemane and of our Lord's 
 prayer to his Father ; we have the solemn challenge of 
 7 
 
146 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 the high priest, "Art thou the Christ, the son of the 
 Blessed 3 " and onr Lord's reply, " I am ; and ye shall see 
 the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and 
 coming in the clonds of heaven," with his immediate con- 
 demnation, on the ground that in this statement he had 
 spoken blasphemy. On the cross, moreover, St. Mark 
 records his affecting appeal to his Father, " My God, my 
 God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " All this solemn evi- 
 dence Prof. Huxley puts aside with the mere passing ob- 
 servation that he has " no inclination to argue about the 
 precise accuracy of every detail of that pathetic story of 
 suffering and wrong." But these prayers and declara- 
 tions of our Lord are not mere details ; they are of the 
 very essence of the story of the Passion ; and whether 
 Prof. Huxley is inclined to argue about them or not, he 
 will find that all serious people will be influenced by them 
 to the end of time, unless they be shown to be unhis- 
 torical. 
 
 At all events, by refusing to consider their import, 
 Prof. Huxley has again, in the most flagrant manner, 
 evaded my challenge. I not only mentioned specifically 
 " the story of the Passion," but I explained what I meant 
 by it ; and Prof. Huxley asks us to believe that he does 
 not understand what I referred to ; he refuses to face that 
 story ; and he raises an irrelevant issue about the resur- 
 rection. It is irrelevant, because the point specifically at 
 issue between us is not the truth of the Christian creed, 
 but the meaning of agnosticism, and the responsibilities 
 which agnosticism involves. I say that whether agnos- 
 ticism be justifiable or not, it involves a denial of the be- 
 liefs in which Jesus lived and died. It would equally in- 
 volve a denial of them had he never risen ; and if Prof. 
 Huxley really thinks, therefore, that a denial of the resur- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 147 
 
 rection affects the evidence afforded by the Passion, he 
 must be incapable of distinguishing between two succes- 
 sive and entirely distinct occurrences. 
 
 But the manner in which Prof. Huxley has treated 
 this irrelevant issue deserves perhaps a few words, for it 
 is another characteristic specimen of his mode of argu- 
 ment. I note, by the way, that, after referring to " the 
 facts of the case as stated by the oldest extant narrative of 
 them " — he means the story in St. Mark, though this is 
 not a part of that common tradition of the three Gospels 
 on which he relies ; for, as he observes, the accounts in 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke present marked variations from 
 it — he adds : 
 
 I do not see why any one should have a word to say against the 
 inherent probability of that narrative ; and, for my part, I am quite 
 ready to accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more is 
 positively known of the end of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 We have, then, the important admission that Prof. 
 Huxley has not a word to say against the historic credi- 
 bility of the narrative in the fifteenth chapter of St. Mark, 
 and accordingly he proceeds to quote its statements for the 
 purpose of his argument. That argument, in brief, is that 
 our Lord might very well have survived his crucifixion, 
 have been removed still living to the tomb, have been 
 taken out of it on the Friday or Saturday night by Joseph 
 of Arimathea, and have recovered and found his way to 
 Galilee. So much Prof. Huxley is prepared to believe, 
 and he asks " on what grounds can a reasonable man be 
 asked to believe any more ? " But a prior question is on 
 what grounds can a reasonable man be asked to believe as 
 much as this ? In the first place, if St. Mark's narrative is 
 to be the basis of discussion, why does Prof. Huxley leave 
 out of account the scourging, with the indication of weak- 
 
148 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ness in our Lord's inability to bear his cross, and treat him 
 as exposed to crucifixion in the condition simply of " tem- 
 perate, strong men, such as the ordinary Galilean peasants 
 were " % In the next place, I am informed by good medi- 
 cal authority that he is quite mistaken in saying that " no 
 serious physical symptoms need at once arise from the 
 wounds made by the nails in the hands and feet," and 
 that, on the contrary, very grave symptoms would ordi- 
 narily arise in the course of no long time from such severe 
 wounds, left to fester, with the nails in them, for six 
 hours. In the third place, Prof. Huxley takes no account 
 of the piercing of our Lord's side, and of the appearance 
 of blood and water from the wound, which is solemnly 
 attested by one witness. It is true that incident is not 
 recorded by St. Mark ; but Prof. Huxley must disprove 
 the witness before he can leave it out of account. But, 
 lastly, if Prof. Huxley's account of the matter be true, the 
 first preaching of the church must have been founded on 
 a deliberate fraud, of which some at least of our Lord's 
 most intimate friends were guilty, or to which they were 
 accessory ; and I thought that supposition was practically 
 out of account among reasonable men. Prof. Huxley ar- 
 gues as if he had only to deal with the further evidence 
 of St. Paul. That, indeed, is evidence of a far more mo- 
 mentous nature than he recognizes ; but it is by no means 
 the most important. It is beyond question that the Chris- 
 tian society, from the earliest moment of its existence, be- 
 lieved in our Lord's resurrection. Baur frankly says that 
 there is no doubt about the church having been founded 
 on this belief, though he can not explain how the belief 
 arose. If the resurrection be a fact, the belief is ex- 
 plained ; but it is certainly not explained by the supposi- 
 tion of a fraud on the part of Joseph of Arimathea. As 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 149 
 
 to Prof. Huxley's assertion that the accounts in the three 
 Gospels are " hopelessly discrepant," it is easily made and 
 as easily denied ; but it is out of all reason that Prof. Hux- 
 ley's bare assertion on such a point should outweigh the 
 opinions of some of the most learned judges of evidence, 
 who have thought no such thing. It would be absurd to 
 attempt to discuss that momentous story as a side issue in 
 a review. It is enough to have pointed out that Prof. 
 Huxley discusses it without even taking into account the 
 statements of the very narrative on which he relies. The 
 manner in which he sets aside St. Paul is equally reckless : 
 
 According to his own showing, Paul, in the vigor of his man- 
 hood, with every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with 
 the evidence of eye-witnesses, not merely refused to credit them, 
 but "persecuted the Church of God and made havoc of it." . . . 
 Yet this strange man, because he has a vision one day, at once, and 
 with equally headlong zeal, flies to the opposite pole of opinion. 
 
 " A vision ! " The whole question is, what vision ? How 
 can Prof. Huxley be sure that no vision could be of such 
 a nature as to justify a man in acting on it 1 If, as we 
 are told, our Lord personally appeared to St. Paul, spoke 
 to him, and gave him specific commands, was he to dis- 
 believe his own eyes and ears, as well as his own con- 
 science, and go up to Jerusalem to cross-examine Peter 
 and John and James ? If the vision was a real one he 
 was at once under orders, and had to obey our Lord's in- 
 junctions. It is, to say the least, rash, if not presumpt- 
 uous, for Prof. Huxley to declare that such a vision as 
 St. Paul had would not have convinced him ; and, at all 
 events, the question is not disposed of by calling the mani- 
 festation " a vision." Two things are certain about St. 
 Paul. One is that he was in the confidence of the Phari- 
 sees, and was their trusted agent in persecuting the Chris- 
 
150 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 tians ; and the other is that he was afterward in the con- 
 fidence of the apostles, and knew all their side of the case. 
 lie holds, therefore, the unique position of having had 
 equal access to all that would be alleged on both sides ; 
 and the result is that, being fully acquainted with all that 
 the Pharisees could urge against the resurrection, he nev- 
 ertheless gave up his whole life to attesting its truth, and 
 threw in his lot, at the cost of martyrdom, with those 
 whom he had formerly persecuted. Prof. Huxley reminds 
 us that he did all this in the full vigor of manhood, and 
 in spite of strong and even violent prejudices. This is 
 not a witness to be put aside in Prof. Huxley's off-hand 
 manner. 
 
 But the strangest part of Prof. Huxley's article re- 
 mains to be noticed ; and, so far as the main point at issue 
 between us is concerned, I need hardly have noticed any- 
 thing else. He proceeds to a long and intricate discus- 
 sion, quite needless, as I think, for his main object, re- 
 specting the relations between the JSTazarenes, Ebionites, 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians, first in the time of Justin 
 Martyr and then of St. Paul. Into this discussion, in the 
 course of which he makes assumptions which, as Holtz- 
 mann will tell him, are as much questioned by the Ger- 
 man criticism on which he relies as by English theologians, 
 it is unnecessary for me to follow him. The object of it 
 is to establish a conclusion, which is all with which I am 
 concerned. That conclusion is that "if the primitive 
 Nazarenes of whom the Acts speak were orthodox Jews, 
 what sort of probability can there be that Jesus was any- 
 thing else ? " * But what more is necessary for the pur- 
 pose of my argument ? To say, indeed, that this a priori 
 
 * Page 124. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 151 
 
 probability places us " in a position to f orm a safe judg- 
 ment of the limits within which the teaching of Jesus of 
 Nazareth must have been confined," is to beg a great 
 question, for it assumes that our Lord could not have 
 transcended those limits unless his disciples transcended 
 them simultaneously with him. But if our Lord's beliefs 
 were those of an orthodox Jew, we certainly know enough 
 of them to be quite sure that they involved a denial of 
 Prof. Huxley's agnosticism. An orthodox Jew certainly 
 believed in God, and in his responsibility to God, and in 
 a divine revelation and a divine law. It is, says Prof. 
 Huxley, " extremely probable" that he appealed " to those 
 noble conceptions of religion which constituted the pith 
 and kernel of the teaching of the great prophets of his 
 nation seven hundred years earlier." But, if so, his first 
 principles involved the assertion of religious realities 
 which an agnostic refuses to acknowledge. Prof. Hux- 
 ley has, in fact, dragged his readers through this thorny 
 question of Jewish and Gentile Christianity in order to 
 establish, at the end of it, and, as it seems, quite uncon- 
 sciously, an essential part of the very allegation which I 
 originally made. I said that a person who " knows noth- 
 ing " of God asserts the belief of Jesus of Nazareth to 
 have been unfounded, repudiates his example, and denies 
 his authority. Prof. Huxley, in order to answer this con- 
 tention, offers to prove, with great elaboration, that Jesus 
 was an orthodox Jew, and consequently that his belief 
 did involve what an agnostic rejects. How much beyond 
 these elementary truths Jesus taught is a further and a 
 distinct question. What I was concerned to maintain is 
 that a man can not be an agnostic with respect to even 
 the elementary truths of religion without rejecting the 
 example and authority of Jesus Christ ; and Prof. Hux- 
 
152 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ley, though lie still endeavors to avoid facing the fact, has 
 established it by a roundabout method of his own. 
 
 I suppose I must also reply to Prof. Huxley's further 
 challenge respecting my belief in the story of the Gada- 
 rene swine, though the difficulty of which he makes so 
 much seems to me too trivial to deserve serious notice. 
 He says " there are two stories, one in ' Mark ' and ' Luke,' 
 and the other in ' Matthew.' In the former there is one 
 possessed man, in the latter there are two," and he asks 
 me which I believe ? My answer is that I believe both, 
 and that the supposition of there being any inconsistency 
 between them can only arise on that mechanical view of 
 inspiration from which Prof. Huxley seems unable to 
 shake himself free. Certainly " the most unabashed of 
 reconcilers can not well say that one man is the same as 
 two, or two as one " ; but no one need be abashed to say 
 that the greater number includes the less, and that if two 
 men met our Lord, one certainly did. If I go into the 
 operating theatre of King's College Hospital, and see an 
 eminent surgeon perform a new or rare operation on one or 
 two patients, and if I tell a friend afterward that I saw the 
 surgeon perform such and such an operation on a patient, 
 will he feel in any perplexity if he meets another spectator 
 half an hour afterward who says he saw the operation per- 
 formed on two patients ? All that I should have been 
 thinking of was the nature of the operation, which is as 
 well described by reference to one patient as to half a 
 dozen ; and similarly St. Mark and St. Luke may have 
 thought that the only important point was the nature of 
 the miracle itself, and not the number of possessed men 
 who were the subjects of it. It is quite unnecessary, 
 therefore, for me to consider all the elaborate dilemmas 
 in which Prof. Huxley would entangle me respecting the 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 153 
 
 relative authority of the first three Gospels. As two in- 
 cludes one, and as both witnesses are in my judgment 
 equally to be trusted, I adopt the supposition which in- 
 cludes the statements of both. It is a pure assumption 
 that inspiration requires verbal accuracy in the reporting 
 of every detail, and an assumption quite inconsistent 
 with our usual tests of truth. Just as no miracle has 
 saved the texts of the Scriptures from corruption in sec- 
 ondary points, so no miracle has been wrought to exclude 
 the ordinary variations of truthful reporters in the Gos- 
 pel narratives. But a miracle, in my belief, has been 
 wrought in inspiring four men to give, within the com- 
 pass of their brief narratives, such a picture of the life 
 and work and teaching, of the death and resurrection, of 
 the Son of man as to illuminate all human existence for 
 the future, and to enable men " to believe that Jesus is 
 the Christ, and believing to have life through his name." 
 It is with different f eelings from those which Prof. 
 Huxley provokes that I turn for a while to Mrs. Hum- 
 phrey "Ward's article on " The New Reformation." Since 
 he adopts that article as a sufficient confutation of mine, 
 I feel obliged to notice it, though I am sorry to appear in 
 any position of antagonism to its author. Apart from 
 other considerations, I am under much obligation to Mrs. 
 "Ward for the valuable series of articles which she con- 
 tributed to the "Dictionary of Christian Biography" 
 under my editorship, upon the obscure but interesting 
 history of the Goths in Spain. I trust that, in her ac- 
 count of the effect upon Robert Elsmere and Merriman 
 of absorption in that barbarian scene, she is not describ- 
 ing her own experience and the source of her own aber- 
 rations. But I feel especially bound to treat her argu- 
 ment with consideration, and to waive any opposition 
 
154: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 which can be avoided. I am sorrj that she, too, ques- 
 tions the possibility in this country of " a scientific, that 
 is to say, an unprejudiced, an unbiased study of theology, 
 under present conditions," and I should have hoped that 
 she would have had too much confidence in her col- 
 leagues in the important work to which I refer than to 
 cast this slur upon them. Their labors have, in fact, 
 been received with sufficient appreciation by German 
 scholars of all schools to render their vindication unneces- 
 sary ; and if Prof. Huxley can extend his study of Ger- 
 man theological literature much beyond Zeller's "Yor- 
 trage" of "a quarter of a century ago," or Kitschl's writ- 
 ings of " nearly forty years ago," he will not find himself 
 countenanced by church historians in Germany in his 
 contempt for the recent contributions of English scholars 
 to early church history. However, it is the more easy 
 for me to waive all differences of this nature with Mrs. 
 Ward, because it is unnecessary for me to look beyond 
 her article for its own refutation. Her main contention, 
 or that at least for which Prof. Huxley appeals to her, 
 seems to be that it is a mistake to suppose that the ra- 
 tionalistic movement of Germany has been defeated in 
 the sphere of New Testament criticism, and she selects 
 more particularly for her protest a recent statement in 
 the " Quarterly Keview " that this criticism, and particu- 
 larly the movement led by Baur, is " an attack which has 
 failed." The Quarterly Keviewer may be left to take 
 care of himself ; but I would only ask what is the evi- 
 dence which Mrs. Ward adduces to the contrary ? It may 
 be summed up in two words — a prophecy and a romance. 
 She does not adduce any evidence that the Tubingen 
 school, which is the one we are chiefly concerned with, 
 did not fail to establish its specific contentions ; on the 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 155 
 
 contrary, she says that " history protested," and she goes 
 on to prophesy the success of other speculations which 
 arose from that protest, concluding with an imaginary 
 sketch, like that with which "Kobert Elsinere" ends, of 
 a " new Eeformation preparing, struggling into utterance 
 and being, all around us. ... It is close upon us — it is 
 prepared by all the forces of history and mind — its rise 
 sooner or later is inevitable." This is prophesy, but it is 
 not argument ; and a little attention to Mrs. Ward's own 
 statements will exhibit a very different picture. The 
 Christian representative in her dialogue exclaims : 
 
 What is the whole history of German criticism but a series of 
 brilliant failures, from Strauss downward? One theorist follows 
 another — now Mark is uppermost as the Ur-Evangelist, now Mat- 
 thew — now the Synoptics are sacrificed to St. John, now St. John 
 to the Synoptics. Baur relegates one after another of the Epistles 
 to the second century because his theory can not do with them in 
 the first. Harnack tells you that Baur's theory is all wrong, and 
 that Thessalonians and Philippians must go back again. Yolkmar 
 sweeps together Gospels and Epistles in a heap toward the middle 
 of the second century as the earliest date for almost all of them ; 
 and Dr. Abbott, who, as we are told, has absorbed all the learning 
 of the Germans, puts Mark before 70 a. d., Matthew just about 
 70 a. d., and Luke about 80 a. d. ; Strauss's mythical theory is dead 
 and buried by common consent ; Baur's tendency theory is much 
 the same ; Kenan will have none of the Tubingen school ; Yolkmar 
 is already antiquated; and Pfleiderer's fancies are now in the order 
 of the day. 
 
 A better statement could hardly be wanted of what 
 is meant by an attack having failed, and now let the 
 reader observe how Merriman in the dialogue meets it. 
 Does he deny any of those allegations ? Not one. " Very 
 well," he says, "let us leave the matter there for the 
 present. Suppose we go to the Old Testament " ; and 
 then he proceeds to dwell on the concessions made to the 
 
156 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 newest critical school of Germany by a few distinguished 
 English divines at the last Church Congress. I must, 
 indeed, dispute her representation of that rather one-sided 
 debate as amounting to "a collapse of English ortho- 
 doxy," or as justifying her statement that " the Church 
 of England practically gives its verdict" in favor, for 
 instance, of the school which regards the Pentateuch or 
 the Hexatench as " the peculiar product of that Jewish 
 religious movement which, beginning with Josiah, . . . 
 yields its final fruits long after the exile." Not only has 
 the Church of England given no such verdict, but Ger- 
 man criticism has as yet given no such verdict. For 
 example, in the introduction to the Old Testament by one 
 of the first Hebrew scholars of Germany, Prof. Hermann 
 Strack, contained in the valuable " Hand-book of the 
 Theological Sciences," edited, with the assistance of sev- 
 eral distinguished scholars, by Prof. Zochler, I find, at 
 page 215 of the third edition, published this year, the 
 following brief summary of what, in Dr. Strack' s opinion, 
 is the result of the controversy so far : 
 
 The future results of further lahors in the field of Pentateuch 
 criticism can not, of course, be predicted in particulars. But, in 
 spite of the great assent which the view of Graf and Wellhausen at 
 present enjoys, we are nevertheless convinced that it will not per- 
 manently lead to any essential alteration in the conception which 
 has hitherto prevailed of the history of Israel, and in particular of 
 the work of Moses. On the other hand, one result will certainly 
 remain, that the Pentateuch was not composed by Moses himself, 
 but was compiled by later editors from various original sources. . . . 
 But the very variety of these sources may be applied in favor of the 
 credibility of the Pentateuch. 
 
 In other words, it may be said that Dr. Strack regards it 
 as established that " The Law of Moses " is a title of the 
 same character as "The Psalms of David," the whole 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 157 
 
 collection being denominated from its principal author. 
 But he is convinced that the general conclusions of the 
 prevalent school of Old Testament criticism, which in- 
 volve an entire subversion of our present conceptions of 
 Old Testament history, will not be maintained. In the 
 face of this opinion, it does not seem presumptuous to 
 express an apprehension that the younger school of He- 
 brew scholars in England, of whose concessions Mrs. 
 Ward makes so much, have gone too far and too fast ; 
 and, at all events, it is clear from what Dr. Strack says 
 — and I might quote also Delitzsch and Dillmann — that 
 it is much too soon to assume that the school of whose 
 conquests Mrs. Ward boasts is supreme. But, even sup- 
 posing it were, what has this to do with the admitted and 
 undoubted failures on the other side, in the field of New 
 Testament criticism? If it be the fact, as Mrs. Ward 
 does not deny, that not only Strauss's but Baur's theories 
 and conclusions are now rejected ; if it has been proved 
 that Baur was entirely wrong in supposing the greater 
 part of the New Testament books were late productions, 
 written with a controversial purpose, what is the use of 
 appealing to the alleged success of the German critics in 
 another field ? If Baur is confuted, he is confuted, and 
 there is an end of his theories ; though he may have been 
 useful, as rash theorizers have often been, in stimulating 
 investigation. In the same valuable hand-book of Dr. 
 Zochler's, already quoted, I find, under the "History of 
 the Science of Introduction to the New Testament," the 
 heading (page 15, vol. i, part 2), "Result of the contro- 
 versy and end of the Tubingen school." 
 
 The Tubingen school (the writer concludes, p. 20) could not but 
 fall as soon as its assumptions were recognized and given up. As 
 Hilgenfeld confesses, "it went to an unjustifiable length, and in- 
 
158 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 flicted too deep wounds on the Christian faifh. ... No enduring 
 results in matters of substance have been produced by it." 
 
 Such is the judgment of an authoritative German 
 hand-book on the writer to whom, in Merriman's opinion, 
 " we owe all that we really know at the present moment 
 about the New Testament," as though the Christian 
 thought and life of eighteen hundred years had produced 
 no knowledge on that subject ! 
 
 In fact, Mrs. Ward's comparison seems to me to point 
 in exactly the opposite direction : 
 
 I say to myself (says her spokesman, p. 466) it has taken some 
 thirty years for German critical science to conquer English opinion 
 in the matter of the Old Testament. . . . How much longer will it 
 take before we feel the victory of the same science . . . with re- 
 gard to the history of Christian origins ? 
 
 Eemembering that the main movement of New Testament 
 criticism in Germany dates not thirty, but more than 
 fifty years back, and that thirty years ago Baur's school 
 enjoyed the same applause in Germany as that of Well- 
 hausen does now, does it not seem more in conformity 
 with experience and with probability to anticipate that, 
 as the Germans themselves, with longer experience, find 
 they have been too hasty in following Baur, so with an 
 equally long experience they may find they have been 
 similarly too hasty in accepting Wellhausen % The fever 
 of revolutionary criticism on the New Testament was at 
 its height after thirty years, and the science has subsided 
 into comparative health after twenty more. The fever 
 of the revolutionary criticism of the Old Testament is 
 now at its height, but the parallel suggests a similar re- 
 turn to a more sober and common-sense state of mind. 
 The most famous name, in short, of German New Testa- 
 ment criticism is now associated with exploded theories ; 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 159 
 
 and we are asked to shut our eyes to this undoubted fact 
 because Mrs. Ward prophesies a different fate for the 
 name now most famous in Old Testament criticism. I 
 prefer the evidence of established fact to that of romantic 
 prophecy. 
 
 But these observations suggest another consideration, 
 which has a very important bearing on that general dis- 
 paragement of English theology and theologians which 
 Prof. Huxley expresses so offensively, and which Mrs. 
 Ward encourages. She and Prof. Huxley talk as if Ger- 
 man theology were all rationalistic and English theology 
 alone conservative. Prof. Huxley invites his readers to 
 study in Mrs. Ward's article 
 
 the results of critical investigation as it is carried out among those 
 theologians who are men of science and not mere counsel for 
 creeds ; 
 
 and he appeals to 
 
 the works of scholars and theologians of the highest repute in the 
 only two countries, Holland and Germany, in which, at the present 
 time, professors of theology are to be found, whose tenure of their 
 posts does not depend upon the results to which their inquiries lead 
 them. 
 
 Well, passing over the insult to theologians in all other 
 countries, what is the consequence of this freedom in 
 Germany itself % Is it seen that all learned and distin- 
 guished theologians in that country are of the opinions of 
 Prof. Huxley and Mrs. Ward? The quotations I have 
 given will serve to illustrate the fact that the exact con- 
 trary is the case. If any one wants vigorous, learned, and 
 satisfactory answers to Prof. Huxley and Mrs. Ward, 
 Germany is the best place to which he can go for them. 
 The professors and theologians of Germany who adhere 
 
160 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 substantially to the old Christian faith are at least as nu- 
 merous, as distinguished, as learned, as laborious, as those 
 who adhere to skeptical opinions. What is, by general 
 consent, the most valuable and comprehensive work on 
 Christian theology and church history which the last two 
 generations of German divines have produced ? Herzog's 
 u Real-Encyclopadie fur protestantische Theologie und 
 Kirche," of which the second edition, in eighteen large 
 volumes, was completed about a year ago. But it is 
 edited and written in harmony with the general belief of 
 Protestant Christians. Who have done the chief exeget- 
 ical work of the last two generations ? On the rational- 
 istic side, though not exclusively so, is the " Kurzgefass- 
 tes exegetisches Handbuch," in which, however, at the 
 present time, Dillmann represents an opposition to the 
 view of Wellhausen respecting the Pentateuch ; but on 
 the other side we have Meyer on the New Testament — 
 almost the standard work on the subject — Keil and De- 
 litzsch on the Old Testament — and a great part of the 
 New, Lange's immense "Bibelwerk," and the valuable 
 " Kurzgefasster Kommentar" on the whole Scripture, 
 including the Apocrypha, now in course of publication 
 under the editorship of Profs. Strack and Zochler. The 
 Germans have more time for theoretical investigations 
 than English theologians, who generally have a great 
 deal of practical work to do; and German professors, 
 in their numerous universities, in great measure live 
 by them. But it was by German theologians that 
 Baur was refuted ; it is by German Hebraists like 
 Strack that Wellhausen and Kuenen are now being 
 best resisted. When Prof. Huxley and Mrs. Ward would 
 leave an impression that, because German theological 
 chairs are not shackled by articles like our own, therefore 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM, 161 
 
 the best German thought and criticism is on the rational- 
 istic side, they are conveying an entirely prejudiced rep- 
 resentation of the facts. The effect of the German sys- 
 tem is to make everything an open question ; as though 
 there were no such thing as a settled system of the spir- 
 itual universe, and no established facts in Christian his- 
 tory ; and thus to enable any man of great ability with a 
 skeptical turn to unsettle a generation and leave the edi- 
 fice of belief to be built up again. But the edifice is 
 built up again, and Germans take as large a part in re- 
 building it as in undermining it. Because Prof. Huxley 
 and Mrs. Ward can quote great German names on one 
 side, let it not be forgotten that just as able German 
 names can be quoted on the other side. Take, for instance, 
 Harnack, to whom Mrs. Ward appeals, and whose "History 
 of Dogmas " Prof. Huxley quotes. Harnack himself, in 
 reviewing the history of his science, pays an honorable 
 tribute to the ]ate eminent divine, Thomasius, whose 
 " History of Dogmas " has just been republished after his 
 death, and who wrote in the devoutest spirit of the Luther- 
 an communion. Of course, Harnack regards his point 
 of view as narrow and unsatisfactory ; but he adds that, 
 " equally great are the valuable qualities of this work in 
 particular, in regard of its exemplarily clear exposition, 
 its eminent learning, and the author's living comprehen- 
 sion of religious problems." A man who studies the his- 
 tory of Christian theology in Harnack without reference 
 to Thomasius will do no justice to his subject. 
 
 But, says Mrs. Ward, there is no real historical appre- 
 hension in the orthodox writers, whether of Germany or 
 England, and the whole problem is one of "historical 
 translation." Every statement, every apparent miracle, 
 everything different from daily experience, must be trans- 
 
162 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 lated into the language of that experience, or else we have 
 not got real history. But this, it will be observed, under 
 an ingenious disguise, is only the old method of assuming 
 that nothing really miraculous can have happened, and 
 that therefore everything which seems supernatural must 
 be explained away into the natural. In other words, it is 
 once more begging the whole question at issue. Mrs. 
 Ward accuses orthodox writers of this fallacy ; but it is 
 really her own. Merriman is represented as saying that 
 he learned from his Oxford teachers that 
 
 it was imperatively right to endeavor to disentangle miracle from 
 history, the marvelous from the real, in a document of the fourth, 
 or third, or secoDd century ; . . . but the contents of the New- 
 Testament, however marvelous and however apparently akin to 
 what surrounds them on either side, were to be treated from an 
 entirely different point of view. In the one case there must be a 
 desire on the part of the historian to discover the historical under 
 the miraculous, ... in the other case there must be a desire, a 
 strong " affection," on the part of the theologian, toward proving 
 the miraculous to be historical. 
 
 Mrs. "Ward has entirely mistaken the point of view of 
 Christian science. Certainly if any occurrence anywhere 
 can be explained by natural causes, there is a strong pre- 
 sumption that it ought to be so explained ; for, though a 
 natural effect may be due in a given case to supernatural 
 action, it is a fixed rule of philosophizing, according to 
 Newton, that we should not assume unknown causes when 
 known ones suffice. But the whole case of the Christian 
 reasoner is that the records of the ISfew Testament defy 
 any attempt to explain them by natural causes. The 
 German critics Hase, Strauss, Baur, Hausrath, Keim, all 
 have made the attempt, and each, in the opinion of the 
 others, and finally of Pfleiderer, has offered an insufficient 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 163 
 
 solution of the problem. The case of the Christian is not 
 that the evidence ought not to be explained naturally and 
 translated into every-day experience, but that it can not 
 be. But it is Mrs. Ward who assumes beforehaud that 
 simply because the " Life and Times of Jesus the Mes- 
 siah," by that learned scholar and able writer, Dr. Eders- 
 heim, whose recent loss is so much to be deplored, does 
 not " translate " all the Gospel narratives into natural oc- 
 currences, therefore it is essentially bad history. The 
 story has been the same throughout. The whole German 
 critical school, from the venerable Karl Hase — and, much 
 as I differ from his conclusions, I can not mention with- 
 out a tribute of respect and gratitude the name of that 
 great scholar, the veteran of all these controversies, whose 
 " Leben Jesu," published several years before Strauss was 
 heard of, is still, perhaps, the most valuable book of ref- 
 erence on the subject — all, from that eminent man down- 
 ward, have, by their own repeated confession, started 
 from the assumption that the miraculous is impossible, 
 and that the Gospels must, by some device or other, be 
 so interpreted as to explain it away. " Affection " there 
 is and ought to be in orthodox writers for venerable, pro- 
 found, and consoling beliefs ; but they start from no such 
 invincible prejudice, and they are pledged by their prin- 
 ciples to accept whatever interpretation may be really 
 most consonant with the facts. 
 
 I have only one word to say, finally, in reply to Prof. 
 Huxley. I am very glad to hear that he has always advo- 
 cated the reading of the Bible and the diffusion of its 
 study among the people ; but I must say that he goes to 
 work in a very strange way in order to promote this re- 
 sult. If he could succeed in persuading people that the 
 Gospels are untrustworthy collections of legends, made 
 
164 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 by unknown authors, that St. Paul's epistles were the 
 writings of " a strange man," who had no sound capacity 
 for judging of evidence, or, with Mrs. Ward's friends, 
 that the Pentateuch is a late forgery of Jewish scribes, I 
 do not think the people at large would be likely to follow 
 his well-meant exhortations. But I venture to remind 
 him that the English Church has anticipated his anxiety 
 in this matter. Three hundred years ago, by one of the 
 greatest strokes of real government ever exhibited, the 
 public reading of the whole Bible was imposed upon 
 Englishmen ; and by the public reading of the lessons on 
 Sunday alone, the chief portions of the Bible, from first 
 to last, have become stamped upon the minds of English- 
 speaking people in a degree in which, as the Germans 
 themselves acknowledge,* they are far behind us. He 
 has too much reason for his lament over the melancholy 
 spectacle presented by the intestine quarrels of church- 
 men over matters of mere ceremonial. But when he 
 argues from this that the clergy of our day " can have but 
 little sympathy with the old evangelical doctrine of the 
 6 open Bible,' " he might have remembered that our own 
 generation of English divines has, by the labor of years, 
 endeavored at all events, whether successfully or not, to 
 place the most correct version possible of the Holy Script- 
 ures in the hands of the English people. I agree with 
 him most cordially in seeing in the wide diffusion and the 
 unprejudiced study of that sacred volume the best se- 
 curity for " true religion and sound learning." It is in 
 the open Bible of England, in the general familiarity of 
 all classes of Englishmen and English-women with it that 
 the chief obstacle has been found to the spread of the 
 
 * See the preface to Riehm's " Handworterbuch." 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM, 165 
 
 fantastic critical theories by which he is fascinated ; and, 
 instead of Englishmen translating the Bible into the lan- 
 guage of their natural experiences, it will in the future, as 
 in the past, translate them and their experiences into a 
 higher and a supernatural region. 
 
VII. 
 
 AN EXPLANATION TO PEOF. HUXLEY. 
 
 By W. C. MAGEE, 
 
 BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH. 
 
 In the February number of this review Prof. Huxley 
 put into the mouth of Mr. Frederic Harrison the following 
 sentence : " In his [the agnostic's] place, as a sort of navvy 
 leveling the ground and cleansing it of such poor stuff as 
 Christianity, he is a useful creature who deserves patting 
 on the back — on condition that he does not venture be- 
 yond his last." The construction which I put upon these 
 words — and of which I still think them quite capable — 
 was that the professor meant to represent Mr. Harrison 
 and himself as agreed upon the proper work of the ag- 
 nostic, and as differing only as to whether he might or 
 might not " venture beyond " that. On this supposition, 
 my inference that he had called Christianity " sorry," or, 
 as I ought to have said, " poor stuff " (the terms are, of 
 of course, equivalent), would have been perfectly correct. 
 
 On re-reading the sentence in question, however, in 
 connection with its context, I see that it may more cor- 
 rectly be regarded as altogether ironical ; and this from 
 the professor's implied denial in his last article of the 
 correctness of my version, I conclude that he intended it 
 to be. I accordingly at once withdraw my statement, 
 
AN EXPLANATION TO PROF. HUXLEY. 167 
 
 and express my regret for having made it. May I plead, 
 however, as some excuse for my mistake, that this picture 
 of himself when engaged in his agnostic labors is so won- 
 derfully accurate and life-like that I might almost be par- 
 doned for taking for a portrait what was only meant for 
 a caricature, or for supposing that he had expressed in so 
 many words the contempt which displays itself in so 
 many of his utterances respecting the Christian faith ? 
 
 Nevertheless I gladly admit that the particular ex- 
 pression I had ascribed to him is not to be reckoned 
 among the already too numerous illustrations of what I 
 had described as his " readiness to say unpleasant," and 
 — after reading his last article — I must add, offensive 
 "things." 
 
 "With this explanation and apology I take my leave of 
 the professor and of our small personal dispute — small, 
 indeed, beside the infinitely graver and greater issues 
 raised in his reply to the unanswered arguments of Dr. 
 Wace. 
 
 I do not care to distract the attention of the public 
 from these to a fencing-match with foils between Prof. 
 Huxley and myself. In sight of Gethsemane and Cal- 
 vary such a fencing-match seems to me out of place. 
 
VIII. 
 
 THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE 
 MIRACULOUS. 
 
 By Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY. 
 
 Charles, or more properly, Karl, King of the Franks, 
 consecrated Eoman emperor in St. Peter's, on Christmas 
 day, a. d. 800, and known to posterity as the Great (chiefly 
 by his agglutinative Gallicized denomination of Charle- 
 magne), was a man great in all ways, physically and 
 mentally. Within a couple of centuries after his death 
 Charlemagne became the center of innumerable legends ; 
 and the myth-making process does not seem to have been 
 sensibly interfered with by the existence of sober and 
 truthful histories of the emperor and of the times which 
 immediately preceded and followed his reign, by a con- 
 temporary writer who occupied a high and confidential 
 position in his court, and in that of his successor. This 
 was one Eginhard, or Einhard, who appears to have been 
 born about a. d. 770, and spent his youth at the court, 
 being educated along with Charles's sons. There is ex- 
 cellent contemporary testimony not only to Eginhard's 
 existence, but to his abilities, and to the place which he 
 occupied in the circle of the intimate friends of the great 
 ruler whose life he subsequently wrote. In fact, there is 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 169 
 
 as good evidence of Eginhard's existence, of his official 
 position, and of his being the author of the chief works 
 attributed to him, as can reasonably be expected in the 
 case of a man who lived more than a thousand years ago, 
 and was neither a great king nor a great warrior. These 
 works are — 1. "The Life of the Emperor Karl." 2. 
 "The Annals of the Franks." 3. "Letters." 4. "The 
 History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs of 
 Christ, SS. Marcellinus and Petrus." 
 
 It is to the last, as one of the most singular and inter- 
 esting records of the period during which the Roman 
 world passed into that of the middle ages, that I wish to 
 direct attention.* It was written in the ninth century, 
 somewhere, apparently, about the year 830, when Egin- 
 hard, ailing in health and weary of political life, had 
 withdrawn to the monastery of Seligenstadt, of which he 
 was the founder. A manuscript copy of the work, made 
 in the tenth century, and once the property of the monas- 
 tery of St. Bavon on the Scheldt, of which Eginhard 
 was abbot, is still extant, and there is no reason to believe 
 that, in this copy, the original has been in any way inter- 
 polated or otherwise tampered with. The main features 
 of the strange story contained in the " Historia Transla- 
 tions " are set forth in the following pages, in which, in 
 regard to all matters of importance, I shall adhere as 
 closely as possible to Eginhard's own words : 
 
 While I was still at court, busied with secular affairs, I often 
 thought of the leisure which I hoped one day to enjoy in a soli- 
 tary place, far away from the crowd, with which the liberality of 
 Prince Louis, whom I then served, had provided me. This place is 
 
 * My citations are made from Teulet's " Einhardi omnia quae extant 
 opera," Paris, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the author, a history 
 of the text, with translations into French, and many valuable annotations. 
 8 
 
170 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 situated in that part of Germany which lies between the Neckar 
 and the Main,* and is nowadays called the Odenwald by those who 
 live in and about it. And here having built, according to my ca- 
 pacity and resources, not only houses and permanent dwellings, but 
 also a basilica fitted for the performance of divine service and of no 
 mean style of construction, 1 began to think to what saint or martyr 
 I could best dedicate it. A good deal of time had passed while my 
 thoughts fluctuated about this matter, when it happened that a cer- 
 tain deacon of the Eoman Church, named Deusdona, arrived at the 
 court for the purpose of seeking the favor of the king in some affairs 
 in which he was interested. He remained some time ; and then 
 having transacted his business, he was about to return to Rome, 
 when one day, moved by courtesy to a stranger, we invited him to 
 a modest refection ; and while talking of many things at table, men- 
 tion was made of the translation of the body of the blessed Se- 
 bastian, t and of the neglected tombs of the martyrs, of which there 
 is such a prodigious number at Rome ; and the conversation having 
 turned toward the dedication of our new basilica, I began to inquire 
 how it might be possible for me to obtain some of the true relics of 
 the saints which rest at Rome. He at first hesitated, and declared 
 that he did not know how that could be done. But observing that I 
 was both anxious and curious about the subject, he promised to 
 give me an answer some other day. 
 
 "When I returned to the question, some time afterward, he im- 
 mediately drew from his bosom a paper, which he begged me to 
 read when I was alone, and to tell him what I was disposed to think 
 of that which was therein stated. I took the paper, and, as he de- 
 sired, read it alone and in secret. (Cap. i, 2, 3.) 
 
 I shall have occasion to return to Deacon Deusdona's 
 conditions, and to what happened after Eginhard's accept- 
 ance of them. Suffice it, for the present, to say that 
 Eginhard's notary, Ratleicus (Ratleig), was dispatched to 
 Rome and succeeded in securing two bodies, supposed to 
 
 * At present included in the duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden. 
 \ This took place in the year 826 a. d. The relics were brought from 
 Rome and deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at Soissons. 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 171 
 
 be those of the holy martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus; 
 and when he had got as far on his homeward journey as 
 the Burgundian town of Solothurn or Soleure,* notary 
 Ratleig dispatched to his master, at St. Bavon, a letter 
 announcing the success of his mission. 
 
 As soon as by reading it I was assured of the arrival of the 
 saints, I dispatched a confidential messenger to Maestricht, to gather 
 together priests, other clerics, and also laymen, to go out to meet 
 the coming saints as speedily as possible. And he and his com- 
 panions, having lost no time, after a few days met those who had 
 charge of the saints at Solothurn. Joined with them, and with a 
 vast crowd of people who gathered from all parts, singing hymns, 
 and amid great and universal rejoicings, they traveled quickly to 
 the city of Argentoratum, which is now called Strasburg. Thence 
 embarking on the Rhine they came to the place called Portus,t 
 and landing on the east bank of the river, at the fifth station, thence 
 they arrived at Michilinstadt, \ accompanied by an immense multi- 
 tude, praising God. This place is in that forest of Germany which 
 in modern times is called the Odenwald, and about six leagues from 
 the Main. And here, having found a basilica recently built by me, 
 but not yet consecrated, they carried the sacred remains into it and 
 deposited them therein, as if it were to be their final resting-place. 
 As soon as all this was reported to me, I traveled thither as quickly 
 as I could. (Cap ii, 14.) 
 
 Three days after Eginhard's arrival began the series of 
 wonderful events which he narrates, and for which we 
 have his personal guarantee. The first thing that he 
 notices is the dream of a servant of Ratleig the notary, 
 who, being set to watch the holy relics in the church after 
 vespers, went to sleep, and during his slumbers had a 
 vision of two pigeons, one white and one gray and white, 
 
 * Xow included in western Switzerland. 
 
 f Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little 
 below the embouchure of the Neckar. 
 
 % The present Michilstadt, thirty miles northeast of Heidelberg. 
 
172 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 which came and sat upon the bier over the relics ; while, 
 at the same time, a voice ordered the man to tell his 
 master that the holy martyrs had chosen another resting- 
 place and desired to be transported thither without 
 delay. 
 
 Unfortunately, the saints seem to have forgotten to 
 mention where they wished to go, and, with the most 
 anxious desire to gratify their smallest wishes, Eginhard 
 was naturally greatly perplexed what to do. While in 
 this state of mind, he was one day contemplating his 
 " great and wonderful treasure, more precious than all the 
 gold in the world," when it struck him that the chest in 
 which the relics were contained was quite unworthy of its 
 contents ; and after vespers he gave orders to one of the 
 sacristans to take the measure of the chest in order that a 
 more fitting shrine might be constructed. The man, hav- 
 ing lighted a wax candle and raised the pall which covered 
 the relics, in order to carry out his master's orders, was 
 astonished and terrified to observe that the chest was cov- 
 ered with a blood-like exudation (loculum mirum in 
 modum humore sanguineo undique distillantem), and at 
 once sent a message to Eginhard. 
 
 Then I and those priests who accompanied me beheld this stu- 
 pendous miracle, worthy of all admiration. For just as when it is 
 going to rain, pillars and slabs and marble images exude moisture, 
 and, as it were, sweat, so the chest which contained the most sacred 
 relics was found moist with the blood exuding on all sides. (Cap. 
 ii, 16.) 
 
 Three days' fast was ordained in order that the mean- 
 ing of the portent might be ascertained. All that hap- 
 pened, however, was that at the end of that time the 
 " blood," which had been exuding in drops all the while, 
 dried up. Eginhard is careful to say that the liquid " had 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 173 
 
 a saline taste, something like that of tears, and was thin 
 as water, though of the color of true blood," and he clear- 
 ly thinks this satisfactory evidence that it was blood. 
 
 The same night another servant had a vision, in which 
 still more imperative orders for the removal of the relics 
 were given; and, from that time forth, "not a single 
 night passed without one, two, or even three of our com- 
 panions receiving revelations in dreams that the bodies of 
 the saints were to be transferred from that place to an- 
 other." At last a priest, Hildfrid, saw, in a dream, a ven- 
 erable white-haired man in a priest's vestments, who bit- 
 terly reproached Eginhard for not obeying the repeated 
 orders of the saints, and upon this the journey was com- 
 menced. Why Eginhard delayed obedience to these re- 
 peated visions so long does not appear. He does not say 
 so in so many words, but the general tenor of the narra- 
 tive leads one to suppose that Mulinheim (afterward Se- 
 ligenstadt) is the " solitary place " in which he had built 
 the church which awaited dedication. In that case all 
 the people about him would know that he desired that 
 the saints should go there. If a glimmering of secular 
 sense led him to be a little suspicious about the real cause 
 of the unanimity of the visionary beings who manifested 
 themselves to his entourage in favor of moving on, he 
 does not say so. 
 
 At the end of the first day's journey the precious 
 relics were deposited in the church of St. Martin, in the 
 village of Ostheim. Hither a paralytic nun (sanctimo- 
 nialis qucedam paralytica) of the name of Euodlang was 
 brought in a car by her friends and relatives from a mon- 
 astery a league off. She spent the night watching and 
 praying by the bier of the saints ; " and health returning 
 to all her members, on the morrow she went back to her 
 
174 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 place whence she came, on her feet, nobody supporting 
 her, or in any way giving her assistance." (Cap. ii, 19). 
 
 On the second day the relics were carried to Upper 
 Mulinheim, and finally, in accordance with the orders of 
 the martyrs, deposited in the church of that place, which 
 was therefore renamed Seligenstadt. Here, Daniel, a 
 beggar boy of fifteen, and so bent that "he could not 
 look at the sky without lying on his back," collapsed and 
 fell down during the celebration of the mass. " Thus he 
 lay a long time, as if asleep, and all his limbs straighten- 
 ing and his flesh strengthening (recepta firmitate nervo- 
 rum), he arose before our eyes, quite well." (Cap. ii, 20.) 
 
 Some time afterward an old man entered the church 
 on his hands and knees, being unable to use his limbs 
 properly : 
 
 He, in the presence of all of us, by the power of God and the 
 merits of the blessed martyrs, in the same hour in which he entered 
 was so perfectly cured that he walked without so much as a stick. 
 And he said that, though he had been deaf for five years, his deaf- 
 ness had ceased akmg with the palsy. (Cap. iii, 33.) 
 
 Eginhard was now obliged to return to the court at 
 Aix la-Chapelle, where his duties kept him through the 
 winter ; and he is careful to point out that the later mira- 
 cles which he proceeds to speak of are known to him only 
 at second hand. But, as he naturally observes, having 
 seen such wonderful events with his own eyes, why 
 should he doubt similar narrations when they are received 
 from trustworthy sources ? 
 
 Wonderful stories these are indeed, but as they are, 
 for the most part, of the same general character as those 
 already recounted, they may be passed over. There is, 
 however, an account of a possessed maiden which is worth 
 attention. 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 175 
 
 This is set forth in a memoir, the principal contents 
 of which are the speeches of a demon who declared that 
 he possessed the singular appellation of " Wiggo," and re- 
 vealed himself in the presence of many witnesses, before 
 the altar, close to the relics of the blessed martyrs. It is 
 noteworthy that the revelations appear to have been made 
 in the shape of replies to the questions of the exorcising 
 priest, and there is no means of judging how far the 
 answers are really only the questions to which the patient 
 replied yes or no. 
 
 The possessed girl, about sixteen years of age, was 
 brought by her parents to the basilica of the martyrs. 
 
 "When she approached the tomb containing the sacred bodies, 
 the priest, according to custom, read the formula of exorcism over 
 her head. When he began to ask how and when the demon had 
 entered her, she answered, not in the tongue of the barbarians, 
 which alone the girl knew, but in the Roman tongue. And when 
 the priest was astonished and asked how she came to know Latin, 
 when her parents, who stood by, were wholly ignorant of it, "Thou 
 hast never seen my parents," was the reply. To this the priest, 
 "Whence art thou, then, if the3e are not thy parents? " And the 
 demon, by the mouth of the girl, " I am a follower and disciple of 
 Satan, and for a long time I was gatekeeper (janitor) in hell ; but, 
 for some years, along with eleven companions, I have ravaged the 
 kingdom of the Franks." (Cap. v, 49.) 
 
 He then goes on to tell how they blasted the crops and 
 scattered pestilence among beasts and men, because of 
 the prevalent wickedness of the people.* 
 
 The enumeration of all these iniquities, in oratorical 
 style, takes up a whole octavo page ; and at the end it is 
 stated, " All these things the demon spoke in Latin by the 
 mouth of the girl." 
 
 * In the middle ages one of the most favorite accusations against 
 witches was that they committed just these enormities. 
 
176 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 And when the priest imperatively ordered him to come out, "I 
 shall go," said he, "not in obedience to you, but on account of the 
 power of the saints, who do not allow me to remain any longer." 
 And, having said this, he threw the girl down on the floor and there 
 compelled her to lie prostrate for a time, as though she slumbered. 
 After a little while, however, he going away, the girl, by the power 
 of Christ and the merits of the blessed martyrs, as it were awaken- 
 ing from sleep, rose up quite well, to the astonishment of all pres- 
 ent; nor after the demon had gone out was she able to speak Latin : 
 so that it was plain enough that it was not she who had spoken in 
 that tongue, but the demon by her mouth. (Cap. v, 51.) 
 
 If the "Historia Translationis " contained nothing 
 more than has been, at present, laid before the reader, 
 disbelief in the miracles of which it gives so precise and 
 full a record might well be regarded as hyper-skepticism. 
 It might fairly be said : " Here yon have a man, whose 
 high character, acute intelligence, and large instruction 
 are certified by eminent contemporaries ; a man who 
 stood high in the confidence of one of the greatest rulers 
 of any age, and whose other works prove him to be an 
 accurate and judicious narrator of ordinary events. This 
 man tells you, in language which bears the stamp of sin- 
 cerity, of things which happened within his own knowl- 
 edge, or within that of persons in whose veracity he has 
 entire confidence, while he appeals to his sovereign and 
 the court as witnesses of others; what possible ground 
 can there be for disbelieving him ? " 
 
 Well, it is hard upon Eginhard to say so, but it is ex- 
 actly the honesty and sincerity of the man which are his 
 undoing as a witness to the miraculous. He himself makes 
 it quite obvious that when his profound piety comes on 
 the stage, his good sense and even his perception of 
 right and wrong make their exit. Let us go back to 
 the point at which we left him, secretly perusing the 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 177 
 
 letter of Deacon Deusdona. As he tells us, its contents 
 were — 
 
 that he (the deacon) had many relics of saints at home, and that he 
 would give them to me if I would furnish him with the means of 
 returning to Rome ; he had observed that I had two mules, and, if 
 I would let him have one of them and would dispatch with him a 
 confidential servant to take charge of the relics, he would at once 
 send them to me. This plausibly expressed proposition pleased me, 
 and I made up my mind to test the value of the somewhat ambigu- 
 ous promise at once ; * so giving him the mule and money for his 
 journey I ordered my notary Ratleig (who already desired to go to 
 Rome to offer his devotions there) to go with him. Therefore, hav- 
 ing left Aix-la- Chap ell e (where the emperor and his court resided 
 at the time) they came to Soissons. Here they spoke with Hildoin, 
 abbot of the monastery of St. Medardus, because the said deacon 
 had assured him that he had the means of placing in his possession 
 the body of the blessed Tiburtius the martyr. Attracted by which 
 promises he (Hildoin) sent with them a certain priest, Hunus by 
 name, a sharp man {hominem callidum), whom he ordered to re- 
 ceive and bring back the body of the martyr in question. And so, 
 resuming their journey, they proceeded to Rome as fast as they 
 could. (Cap. i, 3.) 
 
 Unfortunately, a servant of the notary, one Keginbald, 
 fell ill of a tertian fever, and impeded the progress of the 
 party. However, this piece of adversity had its sweet 
 uses ; for, three days before they reached Rome, Regin- 
 bald had a vision. Somebody habited as a deacon ap- 
 peared to him and asked why his master was in such a 
 hurry to get to Rome ; and when Reginbald explained 
 their business, this visionary deacon, who seems to have 
 taken the measure of his brother in the flesh with some 
 accuracy, told him not by any means to expect that Dues- 
 
 * It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the deacon, 
 whose pledge he qualifies as sponsiones incertce. But, to be sure, he wrote 
 after events which fully justified skepticism. 
 
178 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 dona would fulfill his promises. Moreover, taking the 
 servant by the hand, he led him to the top of a high 
 mountain, and, showing him Rome (where the man had 
 never been), pointed out a church, adding : " Tell Ratleig 
 the thing he wants is hidden there ; let him get it as 
 quickly as he can and go back to his master " ; and, by 
 way of a sign that the order was authoritative, the servant 
 was promised that from that time forth his fever should 
 disappear. And as the fever did vanish to return no 
 more, the faith of Eginhard's people in Deacon Deusdona 
 naturally vanished with it (et fidem diaconi promissis 
 non haberent). Nevertheless, they put up at the deacon's 
 house near St. Peter da Yincula. But time went on and 
 no relics made their appearance, while the notary and the 
 priest were put off with all sorts of excuses — the brother 
 to whom the relics had been confided was gone to Bene- 
 ventum and not expected back for some time, and so on 
 — until Ratleig and Hunus began to despair, and were 
 minded to return, infecto negotio. 
 
 But my notary, calling to mind his servant's dream, proposed to 
 his companion that they should go to the cemetery which their host 
 had talked ahout without him. So, having found and hired a guide, 
 they went in the first place to the basilica of the blessed Tiburtius 
 in the Via Labicana, about three thousand paces from the town, and 
 cautiously and carefully inspected the tomb of that martyr, in order 
 to discover whether it could be opened without any one being the 
 wiser. Then they descended into the adjoining crypt, in which the 
 bodies of the blessed martyrs of Christ, Marcellinus and Petrus, 
 were buried; and, having made out the nature of their tomb, they 
 went away thinking their host would not know what they had been 
 about. But things fell out differently from what they had imag- 
 ined. (Cap. i, 7.) 
 
 In fact, Deacon Duesdona, who doubtless kept an eye 
 on his guests, knew all about their manoeuvres and made 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS 179 
 
 haste to offer his services, in order that, " with the help 
 of God " (si Deus votis eorum favere dignaretur), they 
 should all work together. The deacon was evidently 
 alarmed lest they should succeed without his help. 
 
 So, by way of preparation for the contemplated vol 
 avec effraction, they fasted three days ; and then, at 
 night, without being seen, they betook themselves to the 
 basilica of St. Tiburtius, and tried to break open the altar 
 erected over his remains. But the marble proving too 
 solid, they descended to the crypt, and " having invoked 
 our Lord Jesus Christ and adored the holy martyrs," 
 they proceeded to prise off the stone which covered the 
 tomb, and thereby exposed the body of the most sacred 
 martyr Marcellinus, " whose head rested on a marble tab- 
 let on which his name was inscribed." The body was 
 taken up with the greatest veneration, wrapped in a rich 
 covering, and given over to the keeping of the deacon 
 and his brother Lunison, while the stone was replaced 
 with such care that no sign of the theft remained. 
 
 As sacrilegious proceedings of this kind were pun- 
 ishable with death by the Homan law, it seems not un- 
 natural that Deacon Deusdona should have become un- 
 easy, and have urged Eatleig to be satisfied with what 
 he had got and be off with his spoils. But the notary 
 having thus cleverly captured the blessed Marcellinus, 
 thought it a pity he should be parted from the blessed 
 Petrus, side by side with whom he had rested for five 
 hundred years and more in the same sepulchre (as Egin- 
 hard pathetically observes) ; and the pious man could 
 neither eat, drink, nor sleep, until he had compassed 
 his desire to reunite the saintly colleagues. This time, 
 apparently in consequence of Duesdona's opposition to 
 any further resurrectionist doings, he took counsel with 
 
180 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 a Greek monk, one Basil, and, accompanied by Hunus, 
 but saying nothing to Deusdona, they committed anoth- 
 er sacrilegious burglary, securing this time, not only 
 the body of the blessed Petrus, but a quantity of dust, 
 which they agreed the priest should take, and tell his 
 employer that it was the remains of the blessed Tibur- 
 tius. 
 
 How Duesdona was " squared," and what he got for 
 his not very valuable complicity in these transactions, 
 does not appear. But at last the relics were sent off in 
 charge of Lunison, the brother of Duesdona, and the 
 priest Hunus, as far as Pavia, while Ratleig stopped be- 
 hind for a week to see if the robbery was discovered, and, 
 presumably, to act as a blind if any hue and cry were 
 raised. But, as everything remained quiet, the notary 
 betook himself to Pavia, where he found Luuison and 
 Hunus awaiting his arrival. The notary's opinion of the 
 character of his worthy colleagues, however, may be gath- 
 ered from the fact that, having persuaded them to set out 
 in advance along a road which he told them he was about 
 to take, he immediately adopted another route, and, trav- 
 eling by way of St. Maurice and the Lake of Geneva, 
 eventually reached Soleure. 
 
 Eginhard tells all this story with the most naive air of 
 unconsciousness that there is anything remarkable about 
 an abbot, and a high officer of state to boot, being an 
 accessory both before and after the fact to a most gross 
 and scandalous act of sacrilegious and burglarious rob- 
 bery. And an amusing sequel to the story proves that, 
 where relics were concerned, his friend Hildoin, another 
 high ecclesiastical dignitary, was even less scrupulous 
 than himself. 
 
 On going to the palace early one morning, after the 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 181 
 
 saints were safely bestowed at Seligenstadt, he found 
 Hildoin waiting for an audience in the emperor's ante- 
 chamber, and began to talk to him about the miracle of 
 the bloody exudation. In the course of conversation, 
 Eginhard happened to allude to the remarkable fineness 
 of the garment of the blessed Marcellinus. Whereupon 
 Abbot Hildoin replied (to Eginhard's stupefaction) that 
 his observation was quite correct. Much astonished at 
 this remark from a person who was supposed not to have 
 seen the relics, Eginhard asked him how he knew that. 
 Upon this, Hildoin saw that he had better make a clean 
 breast of it, and he told the following story, which he 
 had received from his priestly agent, Hunus : While 
 Hunus and Lunison were at Pa via, waiting for Eginhard's 
 notary, Hunus (according to his own account) had robbed 
 the robbers. The relics were placed in a church, and a 
 number of laymen and clerics, of whom Hunus was one, 
 undertook to keep watch over them. One night, how- 
 ever, all the watchers, save the wide-awake Hunus, went 
 to sleep; and then, according to the story which this 
 " sharp " ecclesiastic foisted upon his patron — 
 
 it was borne in upon his mind that there must be some great reason 
 why all the people, except himself, had suddenly become somnolent; 
 and, determining to avail himself of the opportunity thus offered 
 {pblata occasione utendum), he rose aud, having lighted a candle, 
 silently approached the chests. Then, having burned through the 
 threads of the seals with the flame of the candle, he quickly opened 
 the chests, which had no locks ; * and, taking out portions of each 
 of the bodies which were thus exposed, he closed the chests and 
 connected the burned ends of the threads with the seals again, so 
 that they appeared not to have been touched ; and, no one having 
 seen him, he returned to his place. (Cap. iii, 23.) 
 
 * The words are scrinia sine clave, which seem to mean " having no 
 key." But the circumstances forbid the idea of breaking open. 
 
182 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Hildoin went on to tell Eginhard that Hunus at first 
 declared to him that these purloined relies belonged to 
 St. Tiburtius ; but afterward confessed, as a great secret, 
 how he had come by them, and he wound up his dis- 
 course thus : 
 
 They have a place of honor beside St. Medardus, where they are 
 worshiped with great veneration by all the people ; but whether we 
 may keep them or not is for your judgment. (Cap. iii, 23.) 
 
 Poor Eginhard was thrown into a state of great per- 
 turbation of mind by this revelation. An acquaintance 
 of his had recently told him of a rumor that was spread 
 about, that Hunus had contrived to abstract all the re- 
 mains of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus while Eginhard's 
 agents were in a drunken sleep ; and that, while the real 
 relics were in Abbot Hildoin's hands at St. Medardus, the 
 shrine at Seligenstadt contained nothing but a little dust. 
 Though greatly annoyed by this " execrable rumor, spread 
 everywhere by the subtlety of the devil," Eginhard had 
 doubtless comforted himself by his supposed knowledge 
 of its falsity, and he only now discovered how consider- 
 able a foundation there was for the scandal. There was 
 nothing for it but to insist upon the return of the stolen 
 treasures. One would have thought that the holy man, 
 who had admitted himself to be knowingly a receiver of 
 stolen goods, would have made instant restitution and 
 begged only for absolution. But Eginhard intimates that 
 he had very great difficulty in getting his brother abbot 
 to see that even restitution was necessary. 
 
 Hildoin's proceedings were not of such nature as to 
 lead any one to place implicit trust in anything he might 
 say; still less had his agent, priest Hunus, established 
 much claim to confidence ; and it is not surprising that 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 183 
 
 Eginhard should have lost no time in summoning his 
 notary and Lunison to his presence, in order that he 
 might hear what they had to say about the business. 
 They, however, at once protested that priest Hunus's 
 story was a parcel of lies, and that after the relics left 
 Eome no one had any opportunity of meddling with 
 them. Moreover, Lunison, throwing himself at Egin- 
 hard's feet, confessed with many tears what actually took 
 place. It will be remembered that, after the body of St. 
 Marcel linus was abstracted from its tomb, Ratleig depos- 
 ited it in the house of Deusdona, in charge of the latter's 
 brother, Lunison. But Hunus, being very much disap- 
 pointed that he could not get hold of the body of St. 
 Tiburtius, and afraid to go back to his abbot empty-hand- 
 ed, bribed Lunison with four pieces of gold and live of 
 silver to give him access to the chest. This Lunison did, 
 and Hunus helped himself to as much as would fill a 
 gallon measure (vas sextarii mensuram) of the sacred re- 
 mains. Eginhard's indignation at the " rapine " of this 
 u nequissimus nebulo " is exquisitely droll. It would ap- 
 pear that the adage about the receiver being as bad as the 
 thief was not current in the ninth century. 
 
 Let us now briefly sum up the history of the acquisi- 
 tion of the relics. Eginhard makes a contract with Deus- 
 dona for the delivery of certain relics which the latter 
 says he possesses. Eginhard makes no inquiry how he 
 came by them ; otherwise, the transaction is innocent 
 enough. 
 
 Deusdona turns out to be a swindler, and has no relics. 
 Thereupon Eginhard's agent, after due fasting and prayer, 
 breaks open the tombs and helps himself. 
 
 Eginhard discovers, by the self-betrayal of his brother 
 
184 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 abbot, Hildoin, that portions of bis relics bave been stolen 
 and conveyed to tbe latter. With much ado he succeeds 
 in getting them back. 
 
 Hildoin's agent, Hunus, in delivering these stolen 
 goods to him, at first declared they were the relics of St. 
 Tiburtius, which Hildoin desired him to obtain ; but aft- 
 erward invented a story of their being the product of a 
 theft, which the providential drowsiness of his compan- 
 ions enabled him to perpetrate from the relics which Hil- 
 doin well knew were the property of his friend. 
 
 Lunison, on the contrary, swears that all this story is 
 false, and that he himself was bribed by Hunus to allow 
 him to steal what he pleased from the property confided 
 to his own and his brother's care by their guest Eatleig. 
 And the honest notary himself seems to have no hesita- 
 tion about lying and stealing to any extent, where the 
 acquisition of relics is the object in view. 
 
 For a parallel to these transactions one must read a 
 police report of the doings of a " long firm " or of a set 
 of horse-coupers ; yet Eginhard seems to be aware of 
 nothing, but that he has been rather badly used by his 
 friend Hildoin and the " nequissimus nebulo " Hunus. 
 
 It is not easy for a modern Protestant, still less for 
 any one who has the least tincture of scientific culture, 
 whether physical or historical, to picture to himself the 
 state of mind of a man of the ninth century, however 
 cultivated, enlightened, and sincere he may have been. 
 His deepest convictions, his most cherished hopes, were 
 bound up in the belief of the miraculous. Life was a 
 constant battle between saints and demons for the posses- 
 sion of the souls of men. The most superstitious among 
 our modern countrymen turn to supernatural agencies 
 only when natural causes seem insufficient ; to Eginhard 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO TEE MIRACULOUS 185 
 
 and his friends the supernatural was the rule, and the 
 sufficiency of natural causes was allowed only when there 
 was nothing to suggest others. 
 
 Moreover, it must be recollected that the possession 
 of miracle-working relics was greatly coveted, not only 
 on high but on very low grounds. To a man like Egin- 
 hard, the mere satisfaction of the religious sentiment was 
 obviously a powerful attraction. But, more than this, the 
 possession of such a treasure was an immense practical 
 advantage. If the saints were duly flattered and wor- 
 shiped, there was no telling what benefits might result 
 from their interposition on your behalf. For physical 
 evils, access to the shrine was like the grant of the use of 
 a universal pill and ointment manuf actury ; and pilgrim- 
 ages thereto might suffice to cleanse the performers from 
 any amount of sin. A letter to Lupus, subsequently ab- 
 bot of Ferrara, written while Eginhard was smarting 
 under the grief caused by the loss of his much-loved wife 
 Imma, affords a striking insight into the current view of 
 the relation between the glorified saints and their wor- 
 shipers. The writer shows that he is anything but satis- 
 fied with the way in which he has been treated by the 
 blessed martyrs whose remains he has taken such pains to 
 "convey" to Seligenstadt, and to honor there as they 
 would never have been honored in their Roman obscurity : 
 
 It is an aggravation of my grief and a reopening of my wound, 
 that our vows have been of no avail, and that the faith which we 
 placed in the merits and intervention of the martyrs has been utter- 
 ly disappointed. 
 
 We may admit, then, without impeachment of Egin- 
 hard's sincerity, or of his honor under all ordinary cir- 
 cumstances, that when piety, self-interest, the glory of the 
 Church in general, and that of the church at Seligenstadt 
 
186 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 in particular, all pulled one way, even the work-a-day 
 principles of morality were disregarded, and a fortiori^ 
 anything like proper investigation of the reality of the 
 alleged miracles was thrown to the winds. 
 
 And if this was the condition of mind of such a man 
 as Eginhard, what is it not legitimate to suppose may have 
 been that of Deacon Deusdona, Lunison, Hunus, and 
 company, thieves and cheats by their own confession ; or 
 of the probably hysterical nun ; or of the professional 
 beggars, for whose incapacity to walk and straighten, 
 themselves there is no guarantee but their own ? Who is 
 to make sure that the exorcist of the demon Wiggo was 
 not just such another priest as Hunus ; and is it not at 
 least possible, when Eginhard's servants dreamed night 
 after night in such a curiously coincident fashion, that a 
 careful inquirer might have found they were very anxious 
 to please their master? 
 
 Quite apart from deliberate and conscious fraud (which 
 is a rarer thing than is often supposed), people whose 
 mythopoeic faculty is once stirred are capable of saying 
 the thing that is not, and of acting as they should not, to 
 an extent which is hardly imaginable by persons who are 
 not so easily affected by the contagion of blind faith. 
 There is no falsity so gross that honest men, and, still 
 more, virtuous women, anxious to promote a good cause, 
 will not lend themselves to it without any clear conscious- 
 ness of the moral bearings of what they are doing. 
 
 The cases of miraculously effected cures of which Egin- 
 hard is ocular witness appear to belong to classes of dis- 
 ease in which malingering is possible or hysteria presum- 
 able. Without modern means of diagnosis, the names 
 given to them are quite worthless. One " miracle," how- 
 ever, in which the patient was cured by the mere sight of 
 
TEE VALUE OF WITNESS TO TEE MIRACULOUS. 187 
 
 the church in which the relics of the blessed martyrs lay, 
 is an unmistakable case of dislocation of the lower jaw in 
 a woman ; and it is obvious that, as not unfrequently hap- 
 pens in such accidents to weakly subjects, the jaw slipped 
 suddenly back into place, perhaps in consequence of a 
 jolt, as the woman rode toward the church. (Cap. v, 
 53).* 
 
 There is also a good deal said about a very question- 
 able blind man — one Albricus (Alberich ?) — who, having 
 been cured, not of his blindness, but of another disease 
 under which he labored, took up his quarters at Seligen- 
 stadt, and came out as a prophet, inspired by the arch- 
 angel Gabriel. Eginhard intimates that his prophecies 
 were fulfilled ; but, as he does not state exactly what they 
 were or how they were accomplished, the statement must 
 be accepted with much caution. It is obvious that he was 
 not the man to hesitate to " ease " a prophecy until it 
 fitted, if the credit of the shrine of his favorite saints 
 could be increased by such a procedure. There is no im- 
 peachment of his honor in the supposition. The logic of 
 the matter is quite simple, if somewhat sophistical. The 
 holiness of the church of the martyrs guarantees the real- 
 ity of the appearance of the archangel Gabriel there, and 
 what the archangel says must be true. Therefore, if any- 
 thing seem to be wrong, that must be the mistake of the 
 transmitter ; and, in justice to the archangel, it must be 
 suppressed or set right. This sort of " reconciliation " is 
 not unknown in quite modern times, and among people 
 
 * Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the " vana ac superstitiosa 
 prcesumplio " of the poor woman's companions in trying to alleviate her 
 sufferings with "herbs and frivolous incantations." Vain enough, no doubt, 
 but the " mulierculae " might have returned the epithet "superstitious" 
 with interest. 
 
188 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 who would be very much shocked to be compared with a 
 " benighted papist " of the ninth century. 
 
 The readers of this review are, I imagine, very 
 largely composed of people who would be shocked to be 
 regarded as anything but enlightened Protestants. It is 
 not unlikely that those of them who have accompanied 
 me thus far may be disposed to say : " Well," this is all 
 very amusing as a story; but what is the practical inter- 
 est of it ? "We are not likely to believe in the miracles 
 worked by the spolia of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus, or 
 by those of any other saints in the Roman calendar." 
 
 The practical interest is this : If you do not believe 
 in these miracles, recounted by a witness whose character 
 and competency are firmly established, whose sincerity 
 can not be doubted, and who appeals to his sovereign and 
 other contemporaries as witnesses of the truth of what 
 he says, in a document of which a MS. copy exists, prob- 
 ably dating within a century of the author's death, why 
 do you profess to believe in stories of a like character 
 which are found in documents, of the dates and of the 
 authorship of which nothing is certainly determined, and 
 no known copies of which come within two or three cent- 
 uries of the events they record ? If it be true that the 
 four Gospels and the Acts were written by Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, and John, all that we know of these persons 
 comes to nothing in comparison with our knowledge of 
 Eginhard ; and not only is there no proof that the tradi- 
 tional authors of these works wrote them, but very strong 
 reasons to the contrary may be alleged. If, therefore, 
 you refuse to believe that " Wiggo " was cast out of the 
 possessed girl on Eginhard's authority, with what justice 
 can you profess to believe that the legion of devils were 
 cast out of the man among the tombs of the Gadarenes ? 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 189 
 
 And if, on the other hand, you accept Eginhard 's evi- 
 dence, why do you laugh at the supposed efficacy of relics 
 and the saint- worship of the modern Romanists ? It can 
 not be pretended, in the face of all evidence, that the 
 Jews of the year 30, or thereabout, were less imbued 
 with the belief in the supernatural than were the Franks 
 of the year a. d. 800. The same influences were at work 
 in each case, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the 
 results were the same. If the evidence of Eginhard is 
 insufficient to lead reasonable men to believe in the mira- 
 cles he relates, a fortiori the evidence afforded by the 
 Gospels and the Acts must be so.* 
 
 But it may be said that no serious critic denies the 
 genuineness of the four great Pauline Epistles — Galatians, 
 First and Second Corinthians, and Eomans — and that, in 
 three out of these four, Paul lays claim to the power of 
 working miracles.f Must we suppose, therefore, that 
 the Apostle to the Gentiles has stated that which is false ? 
 But to how much does this so-called claim amount % It 
 may mean much or little. Paul nowhere tells us what 
 he did in this direction, and, in his sore need to justify 
 his assumption of apostleship against the sneers of his 
 enemies, it is hardly likely that, if he had any very strik- 
 ing cases to bring forward, he would have neglected evi- 
 dence so well calculated to put them to shame. 
 
 And, without the slightest impeachment of Paul's 
 veracity, we must further remember that his strongly 
 marked mental characteristics, displayed in unmistakable 
 
 * Of course, there is nothing new in this argument ; but it does not 
 grow weaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more instructive 
 than that of Augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though in- 
 cidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but 
 those of the people about him. 
 
 f See 1 Cor. xii, 10-28 ; 2 Cor. vi, 12 ; Rom. xv, 19. 
 
190 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 fashion in these Epistles, are anything but those which 
 would justify us in regarding him as a critical witness 
 respecting matters of fact, or as a trustworthy interpreter 
 of their significance. When a man testifies to a miracle, 
 he not only states a fact, but he adds an interpretation of 
 the fact. We may admit his evidence as to the former, 
 and yet think his opinion as to the latter worthless. If 
 Eginhard's calm and objective narrative of the historical 
 events of his time is no guarantee for the soundness of 
 his judgment where the supernatural is concerned, the 
 fervid rhetoric of the Apostle of the Gentiles, his abso- 
 lute confidence in the " inner light," and the extraordinary 
 conceptions of the nature and requirements of logical 
 proof which he betrays in page after page of his Epistles, 
 afford still less security. 
 
 There is a comparative modern man who shared to 
 the full Paul's trust in the " inner light," and who, though 
 widely different from the fiery evangelist of Tarsus in va- 
 rious obvious particulars, yet, if I am not mistaken, shares 
 his deepest characteristics. I speak of George Fox, who 
 separated himself from the current Protestantism of Eng- 
 land in the seventeenth century as Paul separated himself 
 from the Judaism of the first century, at the bidding of 
 the "inner light" — who went thr6ugb persecutions as 
 serious as those which Paul enumerates, who was beaten, 
 stoned, cast out for dead, imprisoned nine times, some- 
 times for long periods, in perils on land and perils at sea. 
 George Fox was an even more widely traveled missionary, 
 and his success in founding congregations^ apd^his energy 
 in visiting them, not merely in Great Britain and Ireland 
 and the West India Islands, but on the continent of Eu- 
 rope and that of North America, was no less remarkable. 
 A few years after Fox began to preach there were reck- 
 
THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 191 
 
 oned to be a thousand Friends in prison in the various 
 jails of England ; at his death, less than fifty years after 
 the foundation of the sect, there were seventy thousand 
 of them in the United Kingdom. The cheerfulness with 
 which these people — women as well as men — underwent 
 martyrdom in this country and in the New England 
 States is one of the most remarkable facts in the history 
 of religion. 
 
 No one who reads the voluminous autobiography of 
 " Honest George " can doubt the man's utter truthfulness ; 
 and though, in his multitudinous letters, he but rarely rises 
 far above the incoherent commonplaces of a street preach- 
 er, there can be no question of his power as a speaker, nor 
 any doubt as to the dignity and attractiveness of his per- 
 sonality, or of his possession of a large amount of practical 
 good sense and governing faculty. 
 
 But that George Fox had full faith in his own pow- 
 ers as a miracle-worker, the following passage of his auto- 
 biography (to which others might be added) demonstrates : 
 
 Now after I was set at liberty from Nottingham gaol (where I 
 had been kept prisoner a pretty long time) I traveled as before, in 
 the work of the Lord. And coming to Mansfield Woodhouse, there 
 was a distracted woman under a doctor's hand, with her hair let 
 loose all about her ears ; and he was about to let her blood, she be- 
 ing first bound, and many people being about her, holding her by 
 violence; but he could get no blocd from her. And I desired them 
 to unbind her and let her alone ; for they could not touch the spirit 
 in her by which she was tormented. So they did unbind her, and 
 I was moved to speak to her, and in the name of the Lord to bid her 
 be quiet and still. And she was so. And the Lord's power settled 
 her mind and she mended ; and afterwards received the truth and 
 continued in it to her death. And the Lord's name was honoured ; 
 to whom the glory of all his works belongs. Many great and won- 
 derful things were wrought by the heavenly power in those days. 
 For the Lord made bare his omnipotent arm and manifested his 
 
192 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 power to the astonishment of many ; by the healing virtue whereof 
 many have been delivered from great infirmities and the devils were 
 made subject through his name : of which particular instances might 
 be given beyond what this unbelieving age is able to receive or 
 bear.* 
 
 It needs no long study of Fox's writings, however, to 
 arrive at the conviction that the distinction between sub- 
 jective and objective verities had not the same place in 
 his mind as it has in that of ordinary mortals. When an 
 ordinary person would say " I thought so and so," or " I 
 made up my mind to do so and so," George Fox says " it 
 was opened to me," or " at the command of God I did so 
 and so." " Then at the command of God on the ninth 
 day of the seventh month 1643 [Fox being just nineteen] 
 I left my relations and brake off all familiarity or friend- 
 ship with young or old." " About the beginning of the 
 year 1647 I was moved of the Lord to go into Darby- 
 shire." Fox hears voices and he sees visions, some of 
 which he brings before the reader with apocalyptic power 
 in simple and strong English, alike untutored and unde- 
 nted, of which, like John Bunyan, his contemporary, he 
 was a master. 
 
 " And one morning, as I was sitting by the fire, a 
 great cloud came over me, and a temptation beset me ; 
 and I sate still. And it was said, All things come by 
 Nature. And the elements and stars came over me ; so 
 that I was in a manner quite clouded with it. . . . And, 
 as I sate still under it, and let it alone, a living hope arose 
 in me, and a true voice arose in me which said, There is 
 a living God who made all things. And immediately 
 the cloud and the temptation vanished away, and life rose 
 
 * " A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and 
 Christian Experiences, etc., of George Fox," ed. i, 1694, pp. 27, 28. 
 
TEE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 193 
 
 over it all, and my heart was glad and I praised the 
 Living God " (p. 13). 
 
 If George Fox could speak as he proves in this and 
 some other passages he could write, his astounding influ- 
 ence on the contemporaries of Milton and of Cromwell is 
 no mystery. But this modern reproduction of the ancient 
 prophet, with his " Thus saith the Lord," " This is the 
 work of the Lord," steeped in supernaturalism and glory- 
 ing in blind faith, is the mental antipodes of the philoso- 
 pher, founded in naturalism and a fanatic for evidence, to 
 whom these afiirmations inevitably suggest the previous 
 question : " How do you know that the Lord saith it ? " 
 " How do you know that the Lord doeth it ? " and who 
 is compelled to demand that rational ground for belief 
 without which, to the man of science, assent is merely an 
 immoral pretense. 
 
 And it is this rational ground of belief which the 
 writers of the Gospels, no less than Paul, and Eginhard, 
 and Fox, so little dream of offering that they would re- 
 gard the demand for it as a kind of blasphemy. 
 
IX. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 By Peof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY. 
 
 Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire 
 discat.* — Augustinus, De Civ. Dei, xii, 7. 
 
 Controversy, like most things in this world, has a 
 good and a bad side. On the good side, it may be said 
 that it stimulates the wits, tends to clear the mind, and 
 often helps those engaged in it to get a better grasp 
 of their subject than they had before ; while, mankind 
 being essentially fighting animals, a contest leads the pub- 
 lic to interest themselves in questions to which, otherwise, 
 they would give but a languid attention. On the bad 
 side, controversy is rarely found to sweeten the temper, 
 and generally tends to degenerate into an exchange of 
 more or less effective sarcasms. Moreover, if it is long 
 continued, the original and really important issues are apt 
 to become obscured by disputes on the collateral and rela- 
 tively insignificant questions which have cropped up in 
 the course of the discussion. No doubt both of these 
 aspects of controversy have manifested themselves in the 
 course of the debate which has been in progress, for some 
 
 * Let no one therefore seek to know from me what I know I do not 
 know, except in order to learn not to know. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 195 
 
 months, in these pages. So far as I may have illustrated 
 the second, I express repentance and desire absolution; 
 and I shall endeavor to make amends for any foregone 
 lapses by an endeavor to exhibit only the better phase in 
 these concluding remarks. 
 
 The present discussion has arisen out of the use, 
 which has become general in the last few years, of the 
 terms " agnostic " and " agnosticism." 
 
 The people who call themselves " agnostics " have 
 been charged with doing so because they have not the 
 courage to declare themselves " infidels." It has been in- 
 sinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to 
 escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper 
 denomination. To this wholly erroneous imputation I 
 have replied by showing that the term " agnostic " did, 
 as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it ; 
 and my statement has not been, and can not be, refuted. 
 Moreover, speaking for myself, and without impugning 
 the right of any other person to use the term in another 
 sense, I further say that agnosticism is not properly de- 
 scribed as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of 
 any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in 
 the validity of a principle which is as much ethical as in- 
 tellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, 
 but they all amount to this : that it is wrong for a man to 
 say that he is certain of the objective truth of any propo- 
 sition unless he can produce evidence which logically jus- 
 tifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; 
 and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosti- 
 cism. That which agnostics deny and repudiate as im- 
 moral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions 
 which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory 
 evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the 
 
196 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported 
 propositions. The justification of the agnostic principle 
 lies in the success which follows upon its application, 
 whether in the field of natural or in that of civil history ; 
 and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, 
 no sane man thinks of denying its validity. 
 
 Still speaking for myself, I add that, though agnosti- 
 cism is not, and can not be, a creed, except in so far as 
 its general principle is concerned ; yet that the applica- 
 tion of that principle results in the denial of, or the sus- 
 pension of judgment concerning, a number of proposi- 
 tions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical 
 "gnostics" profess entire certainty. And in so far as 
 these ecclesiastical persons can be justified in the old-es- 
 tablished custom (which many nowadays think more hon- 
 ored in the breach than the observance) of using oppro- 
 brious names to those who differ from them, I fully ad- 
 mit their right to call me and those who think with me 
 " infidels " ; all I have ventured to urge is that they must 
 not expect us to speak of ourselves by that title. 
 
 The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number 
 of the problems the investigation of which ends in a ver- 
 dict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge 
 and the intellectual habits of the individual agnostic. I 
 do not very much care to speak of anything as unknow- 
 able. What I am sure about is that there are many top- 
 ics about which I know nothing, and which, so far as I 
 can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether 
 these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one 
 of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though 
 I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabili- 
 ties of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure 
 that the region of uncertainty — the nebulous country in 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 197 
 
 which words play the part of realities — is far more exten- 
 sive than I could wish. Materialism and idealism ; the- 
 ism and atheism ; the doctrine of the sonl and its mortal- 
 ity or immortality — appear in the history of philosophy 
 like the shades of Scandinavian heroes, eternally slaying 
 one another and eternally coming to life again in a meta- 
 physical " Nif elheiin." It is getting on for twenty-five 
 centuries, at least, since mankind began seriously to give 
 their minds to these topics. Generation after generation, 
 philosophy has been doomed to roll the stone up hill; 
 and, just as all the world swore it was at the top, down it 
 has rolled to the bottom again. All this is written in in- 
 numerable books ; and he who will toil through them will 
 discover that the stone is just where it was when the 
 work began. Hume saw this ; Kant saw it ; since their 
 time, more and more eyes have been cleansed of the films 
 which prevented them from seeing it ; until now the 
 weight and number of those who refuse to be the prey of 
 verbal mystification has begun to tell in practical life. 
 
 It was inevitable that a conflict should arise between 
 agnosticism and theology ; or rather I ought to say be- 
 tween agnosticism and ecclesiasticism. For theology, the 
 science, is one thing ; and ecclesiasticism, the champion- 
 ship of a foregone conclusion * as to the truth of a particular 
 form of theology, is another. "With scientific theology, 
 agnosticism has no quarrel. On the contrary, the agnos- 
 tic, knowing too well the influence of prejudice and 
 idiosyncrasy, even on those who desire most earnestly to 
 be impartial, can wish for nothing more urgently than 
 that the scientific theologian should not only be at per- 
 
 * " Let U3 maintain, before we bave proved. This seeming paradox is 
 the secret of happiness." (Dr. Newman, "Tract 85," p. 85.) 
 
198 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 feet liberty to thrash out the matter in his own fashion, 
 but that he should, if he can, find flaws in the agnostic 
 position, and, even if demonstration is not to be had, that 
 he should put, in their full force, the grounds of the con- 
 clusions he thinks probable. The scientific theologian 
 admits the agnostic principle, however widely his results 
 may differ from those reached by the majority of agnostics. 
 
 But, as between agnosticism and ecclesiasticism, or, as 
 our neighbors across the Channel call it, clericalism, there 
 can be neither peace nor truce. The cleric asserts that 
 it is morally wrong not to believe certain propositions, 
 whatever the results of a strict scientific investigation 
 of the evidence of these propositions. He tells us that 
 " religious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature." * He 
 declares that he has prejudged certain conclusions, and 
 looks upon those who show cause for arrest of judgment 
 as emissaries of Satan. It necessarily follows that, for 
 him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertainment of 
 truth, is the highest aim of mental life. And, on careful 
 analysis of the nature of this faith, it will too often be 
 found to be not the mystic process of unity with the 
 divine, understood by the religious enthusiast — but that 
 which the candid simplicity of a Sunday scholar once de- 
 fined it to be. " Faith," said this unconscious plagiarist 
 of Tertullian, " is the power of saying you believe things 
 which are incredible." 
 
 Now I, and many other agnostics, believe that faith, 
 in this sense, is an abomination ; and though we do not 
 indulge in the luxury of self-righteousness so far as to 
 call those who are not of our way of thinking hard names, 
 we do feel that the disagreement between ourselves and 
 
 * Dr. Newman, " Essay on Development," p. 357. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 199 
 
 those who hold this doctrine is even more moral than in- 
 tellectual. It is desirable there should be an end of any 
 mistakes on this topic. If our clerical opponents were 
 clearly aware of the real state of the case, there would be 
 an end of the curious delusion, which often appears be- 
 tween the lines of their writings, that those whom they 
 are so fond of calling " infidels " are people who not only 
 ought to be, but in their hearts are, ashamed of them- 
 selves. It would be discourteous to do more than hint 
 the antipodal opposition of this pleasant dream of theirs 
 to facts. 
 
 The clerics and their lay allies commonly tell us that, 
 if we refuse to admit that there is good ground for ex- 
 pressing definite convictions about certain topics, the 
 bonds of human society will dissolve and mankind lapse 
 into savagery. There are several answers to this asser- 
 tion. One is, that the bonds of human society were 
 formed without the aid of their theology, and in the 
 opinion of not a few competent judges have been weak- 
 ened rather than strengthened by a good deal of it. 
 Greek science, Greek art, the ethics of old Israel, the 
 social organization of old Rome, contrived to come into 
 being without the help of any one who believed in a sin- 
 gle distinctive article of the simplest of the Christian 
 creeds. The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief 
 political and social theories of the modern world have 
 grown out of those of Greece and Rome — not by favor 
 of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of 
 early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious 
 occupation with the things of this world were alike des- 
 picable. 
 
 Again, all that is best in the ethics of the modern 
 world, in so far as it has not grown out of Greek thought 
 
200 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 or barbarian manhood, is the direct development of the 
 ethics of old Israel. There is no code of legislation, an- 
 cient or modern, at once so just and so merciful, so tender 
 to the weak and poor, as the Jewish law ; and if the Gos- 
 pels are to be trusted, Jesus of Nazareth himself declared 
 that he taught nothing but that which lay implicitly, or 
 explicitly, in the religious and ethical system of his people. 
 
 And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast 
 well said that he is one ; and there is none other but he : and to 
 love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and 
 with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much 
 more than all whole burnt - offerings and sacrifices. (Mark xii, 
 32, 33.) 
 
 Here is the briefest of summaries of the teaching of 
 the prophets of Israel of the eighth century; does the 
 Teacher, whose doctrine is thus set forth in his presence, 
 repudiate the exposition ? Nay, we are told, on the con- 
 trary, that Jesus saw that he " answered discreetly," and 
 replied, " Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." 
 
 So that I think that even if the creeds, from the so- 
 called " Apostles' " to the so-called " Athanasian," were 
 swept into oblivion ; and even if the human race should 
 arrive at the conclusion that whether a bishop washes a 
 cup or leaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least 
 consequence, it will get on very well. The causes which 
 have led to the development of morality in mankind, 
 which have guided or impelled us all the way from the 
 savage to the civilized state, will not cease to operate be- 
 cause a number of ecclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be 
 baseless. And, even if the absurd notion that morality 
 is more the child of speculation than of practical necessity 
 and inherited instinct, had any foundation ; if all the 
 world is going to thieve, murder, and otherwise miscon- 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 201 
 
 duct itself as soon as it discovers that certain portions of 
 ancient history are mythical, what is the relevance of 
 such arguments to any one who holds by the agnostic 
 principle ? 
 
 Surely the attempt to cast out Beelzebub by the aid 
 of Beelzebub is a hopeful procedure as compared to that 
 of preserving morality by the aid of immorality. For I 
 suppose it is admitted that an agnostic may be perfectly 
 sincere, may be competent, and may have studied the 
 question at issue with as much care as his clerical oppo- 
 nents. But, if the agnostic really believes what he says, 
 the " dreadful consequence " argufier (consistently I ad- 
 mit with his own principles) virtually asks him to abstain 
 from telling the truth, or to say what he believes to be 
 untrue, because of the supposed injurious consequences to 
 morality. " Beloved brethren, that we may be spotlessly 
 moral, before all things let us lie," is the sum total of 
 many an exhortation addressed to the " infidel." Now, as 
 I have already pointed out, we can not oblige our exhort- 
 ers. We leave the practical application of the convenient 
 doctrines of "reserve" and "non-natural interpretation" 
 to those who invented them. 
 
 I trust that I have now made amends for my ambigu- 
 ity, or want of fullness, in any previous exposition of that 
 which I hold to be the essence of the agnostic doctrine. 
 Henceforward, I might hope to hear no more of the asser- 
 tion that we are necessarily materialists, idealists, atheists, 
 theists, or any other ists, if experience had led me to 
 think that the proved falsity of a statement was any guar- 
 antee against its repetition. And those who appreciate 
 the nature of our position will see, at once, that when 
 ecclesiasticism declares that we ought to believe this, that, 
 and the other, and are very wicked if we don't, it is im- 
 
202 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 possible for us to give any answer but this : We have not 
 the slightest objection to believe anything yon like, if yon 
 will give us good grounds for belief ; but, if you can not, 
 we must respectfully refuse, even if that refusal should 
 wreck morality and insure our own damnation several 
 times over. We are quite content to leave that to the 
 decision of the future. The course of the past has im- 
 pressed us with the firm conviction that no good ever 
 comes of falsehood, and we feel warranted in refusing 
 even to experiment in that direction. 
 
 In the course of the present discussion it has been as- 
 serted that the " Sermon on the Mount " and the " Lord's 
 Prayer" furnish a summary and condensed view of the 
 essentials of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, set forth 
 by himself. Now this supposed Summa of Nazarene 
 theology distinctly affirms the existence of a spiritual 
 world, of a heaven, and of a hell of fire ; it teaches the 
 fatherhood of God and the malignity of the devil ; it de- 
 clares the superintending providence of the former and 
 our need of deliverance from the machinations of the lat- 
 ter; it affirms the fact of demoniac possession and the 
 power of casting out devils by the faithful. And, from 
 these premises, the conclusion is drawn that those agnos- 
 tics who deny that there is any evidence of such a char- 
 acter as to justify certainty, respecting the existence and 
 the nature of the spiritual world, contradict the express 
 declarations of Jesus. I have replied to this argumenta- 
 tion by showing that there is strong reason to doubt the 
 historical accuracy of the attribution to Jesus of either the 
 "Sermon on the Mount" or the "Lord's Prayer"; and, 
 therefore, that the conclusion in question is not warranted, 
 at any rate on the grounds set forth. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 203 
 
 But, whether the Gospels contain trustworthy state- 
 ments about this and other alleged historical facts or not, 
 it is quite certain that from them, taken together with 
 the other books of the New Testament, we may collect a 
 pretty complete exposition of that theory of the spiritual 
 world which was held by both ISTazarenes and Christians ; 
 and which was undoubtedly supposed by them to be fully 
 sanctioned by Jesus, though it is just as clear that they 
 did not imagine it contained any revelation by him of 
 something heretofore unknown. If the pneumatological 
 doctrine which pervades the whole New Testament is 
 nowhere systematically stated, it is everywhere assumed. 
 The writers of the Gospels and of the Acts take it for 
 granted, as a matter of common knowledge ; and it is easy 
 to gather from these sources a series of propositions, 
 which only need arrangement to form a complete system. 
 
 In this system, man is considered to be a duality 
 formed of a spiritual element, the soul ; and a corporeal* 
 element, the body. And this duality is repeated in the 
 universe, which consists of a corporeal world embraced 
 and interpenetrated by a spiritual world. The former 
 consists of the earth, as its principal and central constitu- 
 ent, with the subsidiary sun, planets, and stars. Above 
 the earth is the air, and below it the watery abyss. 
 Whether the heaven, which is conceived to be above the 
 air, and the hell in, or below, the subterranean deeps, are 
 to be taken as corporeal or incorporeal is not clear. 
 
 However this may be, the heaven and the air, the 
 earth and the abyss, are peopled by innumerable beings 
 analogous in nature to the spiritual element in man, and 
 
 * It is by no means to be assumed that " spiritual " and " corporeal " 
 are exact equivalents of " immaterial " and " material " in the minds of an- 
 cient speculators on these topics. 
 
204 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 these spirits are of two kinds, good and bad. The chief 
 of the good spirits, infinitely superior to all the others, 
 and their Creator as well as the Creator of the corporeal 
 world and of the bad spirits, is God. His residence is 
 heaven, where he is surrounded by the ordered hosts of 
 good spirits ; his angels, or messengers, and the executors 
 of his will throughout the universe. 
 
 On the other hand, the chief of the bad spirits is 
 Satan — the devil par excellence. He and his company of 
 demons are free to roam through all parts of the uni- 
 verse, except heaven. These bad spirits are far superior 
 to man in power and subtlety, and their whole energies 
 are devoted to bringing physical and moral evils upon 
 him, and to thwarting, so far as their power goes, the be- 
 nevolent intentions of the Supreme Being. In fact, the 
 souls and bodies of men form both the theatre and the 
 prize of an incessant warfare between the good and the 
 evil spirits — the powers of light and the powers of dark- 
 ness. By leading Eve astray, Satan brought sin and 
 death upon mankind. As the gods of the heathen, the 
 demons are the founders and maintainers of idolatry ; as 
 the " powers of the air," they afflict mankind with pesti- 
 lence and famine ; as " unclean spirits," they cause disease 
 of mind and body. 
 
 The significance of the appearance of Jesus, as the 
 Messiah or Christ, is the reversal of the satanic work, by 
 putting an end to both sin and death. He announces 
 that the kingdom of God is at hand, when the "prince of 
 this world " shall be finally " cast out " (John xii, 31) 
 from the cosmos, as Jesus, during his earthly career, cast 
 him out from individuals. Then will Satan and all his 
 deviltry, along with the wicked whom they have seduced 
 to their destruction, be hurled into the abyss of un- 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 205 
 
 quenchable fire — there to endure continual torture, with- 
 out a hope of winning pardon from the merciful God, 
 their Father ; or of moving the glorified Messiah to one 
 more act of pitiful intercession ; or even of interrupting, 
 by a momentary sympathy with their wretchedness, the 
 harmonious psalmody of their brother angels and men, 
 eternally lapped in bliss unspeakable. 
 
 The straitest Protestant, who refuses to admit the ex- 
 istence of any source of divine truth, except the Bible, 
 will not deny that every point of the pneumatological 
 theory here set forth has ample scriptural warranty : the 
 Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse assert 
 the existence of the devil and his demons and hell, as 
 plainly as they do that of God and his angels and heaven. 
 It is plain that the Messianic and the satanic conceptions of 
 the writers of these books are the obverse and the reverse 
 of the same intellectual coinage. If we turn from Script- 
 ure to the traditions of the fathers and the confessions of 
 the churches, it will appear that in this one particular, at 
 any rate, time has brought about no important deviation 
 from primitive belief. From Justin onward, it may often 
 be a fair question whether God, or the devil, occupies a 
 larger share of the attention of the fathers. It is the 
 devil who instigates the Roman authorities to persecute ; 
 the gods and goddesses of paganism are devils, and idola- 
 try itself is an invention of Satan ; if a saint falls away 
 from grace, it is by the seduction of the demon ; if a 
 heresy arises, the devil has suggested it ; and some of the 
 fathers * go so far as to challenge the pagans to a sort of 
 exorcising match, by way of testing the truth of Chris- 
 
 * Tertullian (" Apolog. adv. Gentes," cap. xxiii) thus challenges the 
 Roman authorities: let them bring a possessed person into the presence of a 
 Christian before their tribunal ; and, if the demon does not confess himself 
 
206 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 tianity. Mediaeval Christianity is at one with patristic, on 
 this head. The masses, the clergy, the theologians, and 
 the philosophers alike, live and move and have their being 
 in a world full of demons, in which sorcery and possession 
 are every-day occurrences. Nor did the Eeformation 
 make any difference. Whatever else Luther assailed, he 
 left the traditional demonology untouched ; nor could any 
 one have entertained a more hearty and uncompromising 
 belief in the devil, than he and, at a later period, the Cal- 
 vinistic fanatics of New England did. Finally, in these 
 last years of the nineteenth century, the demonological 
 hypotheses of the first century are, explicitly or implic- 
 itly, held and occasionally acted upon, by the immense 
 majority of Christians of all confessions. 
 
 Only here and there has the progress of scientific 
 thought, outside the ecclesiastical world, so far affected 
 Christians that they and their teachers fight shy of the 
 demonology of their creed. They are fain to conceal 
 their real disbelief in one half of Christian doctrine by 
 judicious silence about it ; or by flight to those refuges 
 for the logically destitute, accommodation or allegory. 
 But the faithful who fly to allegory in order to escape 
 absurdity resemble nothing so much as the sheep in the 
 fable who — to save their lives — jumped into the pit. The 
 allegory pit is too commodious, is ready to swallow up 
 so much more than one wants to put into it. If the 
 story of the temptation is an allegory ; if the early recog- 
 nition of Jesus as the Son of God by the demons is an 
 allegory ; if the plain declaration of the writer of the first 
 Epistle of John (iii, 8), " To this end was the Son of God 
 manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil," 
 
 to be such, on the order of the Christian, let the Christian be executed out 
 of hand. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 207 
 
 is allegorical, then the Pauline version of the fall may be 
 allegorical, and still more the words of consecration of the 
 Eucharist, or the promise of the second coming ; in fact, 
 there is not a dogma of ecclesiastical Christianity the 
 scriptural basis of which may not be whittled away by a 
 similar process. 
 
 As to accommodation, let any honest man who can 
 read the New Testament ask himself whether Jesus and 
 his immediate friends and disciples can be dishonored 
 more grossly than by the supposition that they said and 
 did that which is attributed to them ; while, in reality, 
 they disbelieved in Satan and his demons, in possession 
 and in exorcism ? * 
 
 An eminent theologian has justly observed that we 
 have no right to look at the propositions of the Christian 
 faith with one eye open and the other shut. (" Tract 85," 
 p. 29.) It really is not permissible to see with one eye, 
 that Jesus is affirmed to declare the personality and the 
 fatherhood of God, his loving providence, and his accessi- 
 bility to prayer, and to shut the other to the no less defi- 
 nite teaching ascribed to Jesus in regard to the personal- 
 ity and the misanthropy of the devil, his malignant 
 watchfulness, and his subjection to exorcistic formulae 
 and rites. Jesus is made to say that the devil " was a 
 murderer from the beginning" (John viii, 44) by the 
 same authority as that upon which we depend for his 
 asserted declaration that "God is a spirit" (John iv, 
 24). 
 
 To those who admit the authority of the famous 
 Yincentian dictum that the doctrine which has been held 
 " always, everywhere, and by all " is to be received as 
 
 * See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the " accommodation " 
 subterfuge, already cited, p. 20. 
 
208 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 authoritative, the demonology must possess a higher sanc- 
 tion than any other Christian dogma, except, perhaps, 
 those of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus ; 
 for it would be difficult to name any other points of doc- 
 trine on which the Nazarene does not differ from the 
 Christian, and the different historical stages and con- 
 temporary subdivisions of Christianity from one another. 
 And, if the demonology is accepted, there can be no rea- 
 son for rejecting all those miracles in which demons play 
 a part. The Gadarene story fits into the general scheme 
 of Christianity, and the evidence for " Legion " and their 
 doings is just as good as any other in the New Testament 
 for the doctrine which the story illustrates. 
 
 It was with the purpose of bringing this great fact 
 into prominence, of getting people to open both their 
 eyes when they look at ecclesiasticism, that I devoted so 
 much space to that miraculous story which happens to be 
 one of the best types of its class. And I could not wish 
 for a better justification of the course I have adopted than 
 the fact that my heroically consistent adversary has de- 
 clared his implicit belief in the Gadarene story and (by 
 necessary consequence) in the Christian demonology as a 
 whole. It must be obvious, by this time, that, if the 
 account of the spiritual world given in the New Testa- 
 ment, professedly on the authority of Jesus, is true, then 
 the demonological half of that account must be just as 
 true as the other half. And, therefore, those who ques- 
 tion the demonology, or try to explain it away, deny the 
 truth of what Jesus said, and are, in ecclesiastical termi- 
 nology, " infidels " just as much as those who deny the 
 spirituality of God. This is as plain as anything can well 
 be, and the dilemma for my opponent was either to assert 
 that the Gadarene pig-bedevilment actually occurred, or 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 209 
 
 to write himself down an " infidel." As was to be ex- 
 pected, he chose the former alternative ; and I may ex- 
 press my great satisfaction at finding that there is one 
 spot of common ground on which both he and I stand. 
 So far as I can judge, we are agreed to state one of the 
 broad issues between the consequences of agnostic prin- 
 ciples (as I draw them), and the consequences of ecclesi- 
 astical dogmatism (as he accepts it), as follows : 
 
 Ecclesiasticism says : The demonology of the Gospels 
 is an essential part of that account of that spiritual world, 
 the truth of which it declares to be certified by Jesus. 
 
 Agnosticism {me judiee) says : There is no good evi- 
 dence of the existence of a demonic spiritual world, and 
 much reason for doubting it. 
 
 Hereupon the ecclesiastic may observe : Your doubt 
 means that you disbelieve Jesus; therefore you are an 
 " infidel " instead of an " agnostic." To which the agnos- 
 tic may reply : ~No ; for two reasons : first, because your 
 evidence that Jesus said what you say he said is worth 
 very little ; and, secondly, because a man may be an 
 agnostic in the sense of admitting he has no positive 
 knowledge ; and yet consider that he has more or less 
 probable ground for accepting any given hypothesis about 
 the spiritual world. Just as a man may frankly declare 
 that he has no means of knowing whether the planets 
 generally are inhabited or not, and yet may think one of 
 the two possible hypotheses more likely than the other, 
 so he may admit that he has no means of knowing any- 
 thing about the spiritual world, and yet may think one or 
 other of the current views on the subject, to some extent, 
 probable. 
 
 The second answer is so obviously valid that it needs 
 no discussion. I draw attention to it simply in justice to 
 
210 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 those agnostics, who may attach greater value than I do 
 to any sort of pneumatological speculations, and not be- 
 cause I wish to escape the responsibility of declaring that, 
 whether Jesus sanctioned the deinonological part of Chris- 
 tianity or not, I unhesitatingly reject it. The first an- 
 swer, on the other hand, opens up the whole question of 
 the claim of the biblical and other sources, from which 
 hypotheses concerning the spiritual world are derived, to 
 be regarded as unimpeachable historical evidence as to 
 matters of fact. 
 
 ISTow, in respect of the trustworthiness of the Gospel 
 narratives, I was anxious to get rid of the common as- 
 sumption that the determination of the authorship and 
 of the dates of these works is a matter of fundamental 
 importance. That assumption is based upon the notion 
 that what contemporary witnesses say must be true, or, at 
 least, has always a prima facie claim to be so regarded ; 
 so that if the writers of any of the Gospels were con- 
 temporaries of the events (and still more if they were in 
 the position of eye-witnesses) the miracles they narrate 
 must be historically true, and, consequently, the demon- 
 ology which they involve must be accepted. But the 
 story of the " Translation of the Blessed Martyrs Marcel- 
 linus and Petrus," and the other considerations (to which 
 endless additions might have been made from the fathers 
 and the mediaeval writers) set forth in this review for 
 March last, yield, in my judgment, satisfactory proof that, 
 where the miraculous is concerned, neither considerable 
 intellectual ability, nor undoubted honesty, nor knowl- 
 edge of the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil histo- 
 rians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye-witnesses and 
 contemporaries, affords any guarantee of the objective 
 truth of their statements, when we know that a firm be- 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 211 
 
 lief in the miraculous was ingrained in their minds, and 
 was the pre-supposition of their observations and rea- 
 sonings. 
 
 Therefore, although it be, as I believe, demonstrable 
 that we have no real knowledge of the authorship, or of 
 the date of composition of the Gospels, as they have come 
 down to us, and that nothing better than more or less 
 probable guesses can be arrived at on that subject, I have 
 not cared to expend any space on the question. It will 
 be admitted, I suppose, that the authors of the works at- 
 tributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whoever 
 they may be, are personages whose capacity and judg- 
 ment in the narration of ordinary events are not quite so 
 well certified as those of Eginhard ; and we have seen 
 what the value of Eginhard's evidence is when the mi- 
 raculous is in question. 
 
 I have been careful to explain that the arguments 
 which I have used in the course of this discussion are not 
 new; that they are historical, and have nothing to do 
 with what is commonly called science ; and that they are 
 all, to the best of my belief, to be found in the works of 
 theologians of repute. 
 
 The position which I have taken up, that the evi- 
 dence in favor of such miracles as those recorded by Eg- 
 inhard, and consequently of mediaeval demon ology, is 
 quite as good as that in favor of such miracles as the 
 Gadarene, and consequently of Nazarene demonology, is 
 none of my discovery. Its strength was, wittingly or 
 unwittingly, suggested a century and a half ago by a 
 theological scholar of eminence ; and it has been, if not 
 exactly occupied, yet so fortified with bastions and re- 
 doubts by a living ecclesiastical Yauban, that, in my 
 
212 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 judgment, it has been rendered impregnable. In the 
 early part of the last century, the ecclesiastical mind in 
 this country was much exercised by the question, not ex- 
 actly of miracles, the occurrence of which in biblical 
 times was axiomatic, but by the problem, When did mira- 
 cles cease? Anglican divines were quite sure that no 
 miracles had happened in their day, nor for some time 
 past ; they were equally sure that they happened sixteen 
 or seventeen centuries earlier. And it was a vital ques- 
 tion for them to determine at what point of time, between 
 this terminus a quo and that terminus ad quern, miracles 
 came to an end. 
 
 The Anglicans and the Romanists agreed in the as- 
 sumption that the possession of the gift of miracle-work- 
 ing was prima facie evidence of the soundness of the 
 faith of the" miracle-workers. The supposition that mi- 
 raculous powers might be wielded by heretics (though it 
 might be supported by high authority) led to consequences 
 too frightful to be entertained by people who were busied 
 in building their dogmatic house on the sands of early 
 church history. If, as the Romanists maintained, an un- 
 broken series of genuine miracles adorned the records of 
 their Church, throughout the whole of its existence, no 
 Anglican could lightly venture to accuse them of doctrinal 
 corruption. Hence, the Anglicans, who indulged in such 
 accusations, were bound to prove the modern, the mediae- 
 val Roman, and the later patristic miracles false ; and to 
 shut off the wonder-working power from the Church at 
 the exact point of time when Anglican doctrine ceased 
 and Roman doctrine began. With a little adjustment — 
 a squeeze here and a pull there — the Christianity of the 
 first three or four centuries might be made to fit, or seem 
 to fit, pretty well into the Anglican scheme. So the mira- 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 213 
 
 cles, from Justin, say, to Jerome, might be recognized ; 
 while, in later times, the Church having become "cor- 
 rupt " — that is to say, having pursued one and the same 
 line of development further than was pleasing to Angli- 
 cans — its alleged miracles must needs be shams and im- 
 postures. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it may be imagined that 
 the establishment of a scientific frontier, between the 
 earlier realm of supposed fact and the later of asserted 
 delusion, had its difficulties ; and torrents of theological 
 special pleading about the subject flowed from clerical 
 pens ; until that learned and acute Anglican divine, Con- 
 yers Middle ton, in his " Free Inquiry," tore the sophist- 
 ical web they had laboriously woven to pieces, and dem- 
 onstrated that the miracles of the patristic age, early 
 and late, must stand or fall together, inasmuch as the evi- 
 dence for the later is just as good as the evidence for the 
 earlier wonders. If the one set are certified by contem- 
 poraneous witnesses of high repute, so are the other; 
 and, in point of probability, there is not a pin to choose 
 between the two. That is the solid and irrefragable re- 
 sult of Middleton's contribution to the subject. But the 
 Free Inquirer's freedom had its limits ; and he draws a 
 sharp line of demarkation between the patristic and the 
 New Testament miracles — on the professed ground that 
 the accounts of the latter, being inspired, are out of the 
 reach of criticism. 
 
 A century later, the question was taken up by another 
 divine, Middleton's equal in learning and acuteness, and 
 far his superior in subtlety and dialectic skill ; who, 
 though an Anglican, scorned the name of Protestant; 
 and, while yet a Churchman, made it his business to pa- 
 rade, with infinite skill, the utter hollowness of the argu- 
 
214 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ments of those of his brother Churchmen who dreamed 
 that the j could be both Anglicans and Protestants. The 
 argument of the " Essay on the Miracles recorded in the 
 Ecclesiastical History of the Early Ages," * by the pres- 
 ent Roman cardinal, but then Anglican doctor, John 
 Henry Newman, is compendiously stated by himself in 
 the following passage : 
 
 If the miracles of church history can not be defended by the 
 arguments of Leslie, Lyttleton, Paley, or Douglas, how many of the 
 Scripture miracles satisfy their conditions ? (p. cvii). 
 
 And, although the answer is not given in so many words, 
 little doubt is left on the mind of the reader that in the 
 mind of the writer it is : None. In fact, this conclusion 
 is one which can not be resisted, if the argument in favor 
 of the Scripture miracles is based upon that which lay- 
 men, whether lawyers, or men of science, or historians, 
 or ordinary men of affairs call evidence. But there is 
 something really impressive in the magnificent contempt 
 with which, at times, Dr. Newman sweeps aside alike 
 those who offer and those who demand such evidence. 
 
 Some infidel authors advise us to accept no miracles which 
 would not have a verdict in their favor in a court of justice ; that is, 
 they employ against Scripture a weapon which Protestants would 
 confine to attacks upon the Church, as if moral and religious questions 
 required legal proofs, and evidence were the test of truth t (p. cvii). 
 
 " As if evidence were the test of truth " ! — although the 
 truth in question is the occurrence or non-occurrence of 
 
 * I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition appeared in 1870. 
 Tract 85 of the " Tracts for the Times " should be read with this " Essay." 
 If I were called upon to compile a primer of " infidelity," I think I should 
 save myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and from the 
 " Essay on Development " by the same author. 
 
 f Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the introduction to the " Essay 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 215 
 
 certain phenomena at a certain time and in a certain 
 place. This sudden revelation of the great gulf fixed 
 between the ecclesiastical and the scientific mind is 
 enough to take away the breath of any one unfamiliar 
 with the clerical organon. As if, one may retort, the as- 
 sumption that miracles may, or have, served a moral or a 
 religious end in any way alters the fact that they profess 
 to be historical events, things that actually happened ; 
 and, as such, must needs be exactly those subjects about 
 which evidence is appropriate and legal proofs (which are 
 such merely because they afford adequate evidence) may 
 be justly demanded. The Gadarene miracle either hap- 
 pened, or it did not. "Whether the Gadarene " question " 
 is moral or religious, or not, has nothing to do with the 
 fact that it is a purely historical question whether the 
 demons said what they are declared to have said, and the 
 devil-possessed pigs did or did not rush over the cliffs of 
 the Lake of Gennesareth on a certain day of a certain 
 year, after a. d. 26 and before a. d. 36 ; for, vague and 
 uncertain as JSTew Testament chronology is, I suppose it 
 may be assumed that the event in question, if it happened 
 at all, took place during the procuratorship of Pilate. 
 If that is not a matter about which evidence ought to be 
 required, and not only legal but strict scientific proof de- 
 manded by sane men who are asked to believe the story 
 — what is ? Is a reasonable being to be seriously asked 
 to credit statements which, to put the case gently, are not 
 exactly probable, and on the acceptance or rejection of 
 which his whole view of life may depend, without asking 
 for as much " legal " proof as would send an alleged pick- 
 on Development," Dr. Newman can demand strict evidence in religious 
 questions as sharply as any " infidel author " ; and he can even profess to 
 yield to its force (" Essays on Miracles," 1870, note, p. 391). 
 
216 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 pocket to jail, or as would suffice to prove the validity of 
 a disputed will ? 
 
 "Infidel authors" (if, as I am assured, I may answer 
 for them) will decline to waste time on mere darkenings 
 of counsel of this sort ; but to those Anglicans who accept 
 his premises, Dr. Newman is a truly formidable antago- 
 nist. What, indeed, are they to reply when he puts the 
 very pertinent question : 
 
 M whether persons who, not merely question, but prejudge the eccle- 
 siastical miracles on the ground of their want of resemblance, what- 
 ever that be, to those contained in Scripture — as if the Almighty 
 could not do in the Christian church what he had not already done 
 at the time of its foundation, or under the Mosaic covenant — whether 
 such reasoners are not siding with the skeptic," 
 
 and 
 
 "whether it is not a happy inconsistency by which they continue 
 to believe the Scriptures while they reject the Church " * (p. liii). 
 
 Again, I invite Anglican orthodoxy to consider this pas- 
 
 the narrative of the combats of St. Antony with evil spirits is a 
 development rather than a contradiction of revelation, viz., of such 
 texts as speak of Satan being cast out by prayer and fasting. To 
 be shocked, then, at the miracles of ecclesiastical history, or to 
 ridicule them for their strangeness, is no part of a scriptural phi- 
 losophy (p. liii-liv). 
 
 Further on, Dr. Newman declares that it has been ad- 
 mitted 
 
 that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circum- 
 stance between the miracles of Scripture and of church history ; but 
 this is by no means the case (p. lv). . . . Specimens are not want- 
 
 * Compare " Tract 85," p. 110 : "I am persuaded that were men but con- 
 sistent who oppose the Church doctrines as being unscriptural, they would 
 vindicate the Jews for rejecting the gospel." 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 217 
 
 ing in the history of the Church of miracles as awful in their char- 
 acter and as momentous in their effects as those which are recorded 
 in Scripture. The fire interrupting the rebuilding of the Jewish 
 Temple, and the death of Arius, are instances in ecclesiastical his- 
 tory of such solemn events. On the other hand, difficult instances 
 in the Scripture history are such as these : the serpent in Eden, the 
 ark, Jacob's vision for the multiplication of his cattle, the speaking 
 of Balaam's ass', the axe swimming at Elisha's word, the miracle on 
 the swine, and various instances of prayers or prophecies, in which, 
 as in that of Noah's blessing and curse, words which seem the result 
 of private feeling are expressly or virtually ascribed to a divine sug- 
 gestion (p. lvi). 
 
 Who is to gainsay our ecclesiastical authority here ? 
 " Infidel authors " might be accused of a wish to ridicule 
 the Scripture miracles by putting them on a level with 
 the remarkable story about the fire which stopped the re- 
 building of the Temple, or that about the death of Arius 
 — but Dr. Newman is above suspicion. The pity is that 
 his list of what he delicately terms "difficult" instances 
 is so short. Why omit the manufacture of Eve out of 
 Adam's rib, on the strict historical accuracy of which the 
 chief argument of the defenders of an iniquitous portion 
 of our present marriage law depends ? Why leave out 
 the account of the "Bene Elohim" and their gallantries, 
 on which a large part of the worst practices of the me- 
 diaeval inquisitors into witchcraft was based ? Why for- 
 get the angel who wrestled with Jacob, and, as the account 
 suggests, somewhat overstepped the bounds of fair play 
 at the end of the struggle % Surely we must agree with 
 Dr. Newman that, if all these camels have gone down, it 
 savors of affectation to strain at such gnats as the sudden 
 ailment of Arius in the midst of his deadly, if prayerful,* 
 
 * According to Dr. Newman, "This prayer [that of Bishop Alexander, 
 ■who begged God to ' take Arius away '] is said to have been offered about 
 10 
 
218 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 enemies ; and the fiery explosion which stopped the Julian 
 building operations. Though the words of the " Conclu- 
 sion" of the " Essay on Miracles" may, perhaps, be quoted 
 against me, I may express my satisfaction at finding my- 
 self in substantial accordance with a theologian above all 
 suspicion of heterodoxy. With all my heart, I can de- 
 clare my belief that there is just as good reason for be- 
 lieving in the miraculous slaying of the man who fell 
 short of the Athanasian power of affirming contradictories, 
 with respect to the nature of the Godhead, as there is for 
 believing in the stories of the serpent and the ark told in 
 Genesis, the speaking of Balaam's ass in Numbers, or the 
 floating of the axe, at Elisha's order, in the second book 
 of Kings. 
 
 It is one of the peculiarities of a really sound argu- 
 ment that it is susceptible of the fullest development ; and 
 that it sometimes leads to conclusions unexpected by those 
 who employ it. To my mind it is impossible to refuse to 
 follow Dr. Newman when he extends his reasoning from 
 the miracles of the patristic and mediaeval ages backward 
 in time as far as miracles are recorded. But, if the rules 
 of logic are valid, I feel compelled to extend the argu- 
 ment forward to the alleged Eoman miracles of the pres- 
 ent day, which Dr. Newman might not have admitted, 
 
 3 p. m. on the Saturday ; that same evening Arius was in the great square 
 of Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition'- (p. clxx). 
 The " infidel " Gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that " an option be- 
 tween poison and miracle " is presented by this ease ; and it must be ad- 
 mitted, that if the bishop had been within reach of a modern police magis- 
 trate, things might have gone hardly with him. Modern " infidels," pos- 
 sessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with no less 
 audacity, to suggest an " option between fire-damp and miracle " in seeking 
 for the cause of the fiery outburst at Jerusalem. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 219 
 
 but which Cardinal Newman may hardly reject. Beyond 
 question, there is as good, or perhaps better, evidence for 
 the miracles worked by our Lady of Lourdes, as there is 
 for the floating of Elisha's axe or the speaking of Balaam's 
 ass. But we must go still further; there is a modern 
 system of thaumaturgy and demonology which is just as 
 well certified as the ancient.* Veracious, excellent, some- 
 times learned and acute persons, even philosophers of no 
 mean pretension, testify to the "levitation" of bodies 
 much heavier than Elisha's axe; to the existence of 
 " spirits " who, to the mere tactile sense, have been indis- 
 tinguishable from flesh and blood, and occasionally have 
 wrestled with all the vigor of Jacob's opponent ; yet, fur- 
 ther, to the speech, in the language of raps, of spiritual 
 beings, whose discourses, in point of coherence and value, 
 are far inferior to that of Balaam's humble but sagacious 
 steed. I have not the smallest doubt that, if these were 
 persecuting times, there is many a worthy " spiritualist " 
 
 * A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me roundly to task for ventur- 
 ing to doubt the historical and literal truth of the Gadarene story. The 
 following passage in his letter is worth quotation : " Now to the material- 
 istic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in spiritual verities, certainly this 
 story of the Gadarene or Gergesene swine presents insurmountable diffi- 
 culties ; it seems grotesque and nonsensical. To the experienced, trained, 
 and cultivated Spiritualist this miracle is, as I am prepared to show, one 
 of the most instructive, the most profoundly useful, and the most benefi- 
 cent which Jesus ever wrought in the whole course of his pilgrimage of 
 redemption on earth." Just so. And the first page of this same journal 
 presents the following advertisement, among others of the same kidney : 
 
 " To Wealthy Spiritualists. — A lady medium of tried power wishes 
 to meet with an elderly gentleman who would be willing to give her a com- 
 fortable home and maintenance in exchange for her spiritualistic services, 
 as her guides consider her health is too delicate for public sittings : London 
 preferred. — Address ' Mary,' office of ' Light.' " 
 
 Are we going back to the days of the Judges, when wealthy Micah set 
 up his private ephod, teraphim, and Levite ? 
 
220 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 who would cheerfully go to the stake in support of his 
 pneumatological faith, and furnish evidence, after Paley's 
 own heart, in proof of the truth of his doctrines. Not a 
 few modern divines, doubtless struck by the impossibility 
 of refusing the spiritualist evidence, if the ecclesiastical 
 evidence is accepted, and deprived of any a priori objec- 
 tion by their implicit belief in Christian demon ology, 
 show themselves ready to take poor Sludge seriously, and 
 to believe that he is possessed by other devils than those 
 of need, greed, and vainglory. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it was to be expected, 
 though it is none the less interesting to note the fact, that 
 the arguments of the latest school of " spiritualists " pre- 
 sent a wonderful family likeness to those which adorn the 
 subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical mira- 
 cles of forty years ago. It is unfortunate for the " spirit- 
 ualists " that, over and over again, celebrated and trusted 
 media, who really, in some respects, call to mind the 
 Montanist * and gnostic seers of the second century, are 
 either proved in courts of law to be fraudulent impostors ; 
 or, in sheer weariness, as it would seem, of the honest 
 dupes who swear by them, spontaneously confess their 
 long-continued iniquities, as the Fox women did the other 
 day in New York.f But whenever a catastrophe of this 
 
 * Consider Tertullian's " sister " ("hodie apud nos"), who conversed 
 with angels, saw and heard mysteries, knew men's thoughts, and prescribed 
 medicine for their bodies (" De Anima," cap. 9). Tertullian tells us that 
 this woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its color and shape. 
 The " infidel " will probably be unable to refrain from insulting the memory 
 of the ecstatic saint by the remark that Tertullian's known views about the 
 corporeality of the soul may have had something to do with the remarkable 
 perceptive powers of the Montanist medium, in whose revelations of the 
 spiritual world he took such profound interest. 
 
 f See the New York "World" for Sunday, October 21, 1888; and the 
 " Report of the Seybert Commission," Philadelphia, 1887. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 221 
 
 kind takes place, the believers are nowise dismayed by it. 
 They freely admit that not only the media, but the spirits 
 whom they summon, are sadly apt to lose sight of the ele- 
 mentary principles of right and wrong; and they tri- 
 umphantly ask : How does the occurrence of occasional 
 impostures disprove the genuine manifestations (that is to 
 say, all those which have not yet been proved to be im- 
 postures or delusions) ? And, in this, they unconsciously 
 plagiarize from the churchman, who just as freely admits 
 that many ecclesiastical miracles may have been forged ; 
 and asks, with the same calm contempt, not only of legal 
 proofs, but of common-sense probability, Why does it 
 follow that none are to be supposed genuine ? I must 
 say, however, that the spiritualists, so far as I know, do 
 not venture to outrage right reason so boldly as the eccle- 
 siastics. They do not sneer at " evidence " ; nor repudi- 
 ate the requirement of legal proofs. In fact, there can 
 be no doubt that the spiritualists produce better evidence 
 for their manifestations than can be shown either for the 
 miraculous death of Arius, or for the invention of the 
 cross.* 
 
 From the " levitation " of the axe at one end of a pe- 
 riod of near three thousand years to the " levitation " of 
 Sludge & Co. at the other end, there is a complete con- 
 tinuity of the miraculous with every gradation from the 
 childish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a 
 caprice to the illustration of sublime truth. There is no 
 drawing a line in the series that might be set out of plaus- 
 
 * Dr. Newman's observation that the miraculous multiplication of the 
 pieces of the true cross (with which " the whole world is filled," according 
 to Cyril of Jerusalem ; and of which some say there are enough extant to 
 build a man-of-war) is no more wonderful than that of the loaves and 
 fishes, is one that I do not see my way to contradict. See " Essay on Mira- 
 cles," second edition, p. 163. 
 
222 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ibly attested cases of spiritual intervention. If one is 
 true, all may be true ; if one is false, all may be false. 
 
 This is, to my mind, the inevitable result of that 
 method of reasoning which is applied to the confutation 
 of Protestantism, with so much success, by one of the 
 acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever championed 
 ecclesiasticism — and one can not put his claims to acute- 
 ness and subtlety higher. 
 
 . . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever 
 there were a safe truth it is this. ..." To be deep in history is to 
 cease to be a Protestant." * 
 
 I have not a shadow of doubt that these anti-Protest- 
 ant epigrams are profoundly true. But I have as little 
 that, in the same sense, the "Christianity of history is 
 not " Romanism ; and that to be deeper in history is to 
 cease to be a Romanist. The reasons which compel my 
 doubts about the compatibility of the Roman doctrine, or 
 any other form of Catholicism, with history, arise out of 
 exactly the same line of argument as that adopted by Dr. 
 Newman in the famous essay which I have just cited. If, 
 with one hand, Dr. Newman has destroyed Protestantism, 
 he has annihilated Romanism with the other ; and the to- 
 tal result of his ambidextral efforts is to shake Christian- 
 ity to its foundations. Nor was any one better aware 
 that this must be the inevitable result of his arguments — 
 if the world should refuse to accept Roman doctrines and 
 Roman miracles — than the writer of " Tract 85." 
 
 Dr. Newman made his choice and passed over to the 
 Roman Church half a century ago. Some of those who 
 
 f "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," by J. H. New- 
 man, D. D., pp. 1 and 8. (1878.) 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 223 
 
 were essentially in harmony with his views preceded, and 
 many followed him. But many remained ; and, as the 
 quondam Puseyite and present Kitualistic party, they are 
 continuing that work of sapping and mining the Protest- 
 antism of the Anglican Church which he and his friends 
 so ably commenced. At the present time they have no 
 little claim to be considered victorious all along the line. 
 I am old enough to recollect the small beginnings of the 
 Tractarian party ; and I am amazed when I consider the 
 present position of their heirs. Their little leaven has 
 leavened, if not the whole, yet a very large, lump of the 
 Anglican Church ; which is now pretty much of a pre- 
 paratory school for Papistry. So that it really behooves 
 Englishmen (who, as I have been informed by high au- 
 thority, are all, legally, members of the state Church, if 
 they profess to belong to no other sect) to wake up to 
 what that powerful organization is about, and whither it 
 is tending. On this point, the writings of Dr. Newman, 
 while he still remained within the Anglican fold, are a 
 vast store of the best and the most authoritative informa- 
 tion. His doctrines on ecclesiastical miracles and on de- 
 velopment are the corner-stones of the Tractarian fabric. 
 He believed that his arguments led either Homeward, or 
 to what ecclesiastics call " infidelity," and I call agnosti- 
 cism. I believe that he was quite right in this convic- 
 tion ; but while he chooses the one alternative, I choose 
 the other ; as he rejects Protestantism on the ground of 
 its incompatibility with history, so, a fortiori, I conceive 
 that Komanism ought to be rejected, and that an impar- 
 tial consideration of the evidence must refuse the au- 
 thority of Jesus to anything more than the ISTazarenism of 
 James and Peter and John. And let it not be supposed 
 that this is a mere " infidel " perversion of the facts. No 
 
224: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 one has more openly and clearly admitted the possibility 
 that they may be fairly interpreted in this way than Dr. 
 Newman. If, he says, there are texts which seem to 
 show that Jesus contemplated the evangelization of the 
 heathen : 
 
 , . . Did not the apostles hear our Lord ? and what was their 
 impression from what they heard? Is it not certain that the apos- 
 tles did not gather this truth from his teaching? ("Tract 85," 
 p. 63.) 
 
 He said, " Preach the gospel to every creature." These words 
 need have only meant " Bring all men to Christianity through Ju- 
 daism." Make them Jews, that they may enjoy Christ's privileges 
 which are lodged in Judaism ; teach them those rites and ceremo- 
 nies, circumcision and the like, which hitherto have heen dead or- 
 dinances, and now are living ; and so the apostles seem to have 
 understood them (Ibid., p. 65). 
 
 So far as ]N"azarenism differentiated itself from con- 
 temporary orthodox Judaism, it seems to have tended 
 toward a revival of the ethical and religious spirit of the 
 prophetic age, accompanied by the belief in Jesus as 
 the Messiah, and by various accretions which had grown 
 round Judaism subsequently to the exile. To these 
 belong the doctrines of the resurrection, of the last judg- 
 ment of heaven and hell; of the hierarchy of good 
 angels ; of Satan and the hierarchy of evil spirits. And 
 there is very strong ground for believing that all these 
 doctrines, at least in the shapes in which they were held 
 by the post-exilic Jews, were derived from Persian and 
 Babylonian * sources, and are essentially of heathen origin. 
 
 * Dr. Newman faces this question with his customary ability. " Now, 
 I own, I am not at all solicitous to deny that this doctrine of an apostate 
 angel and his hosts was gained from Babylon : it might still be divine nev- 
 ertheless. God who made the prophet's ass speak, and thereby instructed 
 the prophet, might instruct his church by means of heathen Babylon" 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 225 
 
 How far Jesus positively sanctioned all these indrain- 
 ings of circumjacent paganism into Judaism ; bow far 
 any one has a right to say that the refusal to accept one 
 or other of these doctrines as ascertained verities comes 
 to the same thing as contradicting Jesus, it appears to me 
 not easy to say. But it is hardly less difficult to con- 
 ceive that he could have distinctly negatived any of 
 them ; and, more especially, that demonology which has 
 been accepted by the Christian churches in every age and 
 under all their mutual antagonisms. But, I repeat my 
 conviction that, whether Jesus sanctioned the demonology 
 of his time and nation or not, it is doomed. The future 
 of Christianity as a dogmatic system and apart from the 
 old Israelitish ethics which it has appropriated and devel- 
 oped, lies in the answer which mankind will eventually 
 give to the question whether they are prepared to believe 
 such stories as the Gadarene and the pneumatological 
 hypotheses which go with it, or not. My belief is they 
 will decline to do anything of the sort, whenever and 
 wherever their minds have been disciplined by science. 
 And that discipline must and will at once follow and lead 
 the footsteps of advancing civilization. 
 
 The preceding pages were written before I became 
 acquainted with the contents of the May number of this 
 review, wherein I discover many things which are de- 
 cidedly not to my advantage. It would appear that 
 " evasion " is my chief resource, "incapacity for strict 
 argument " and " rottenness of ratiocination " my main 
 mental characteristics, and that it is "barely credible" 
 that a statement which I profess to make of my own 
 
 ("Tract 85," p. 83). There seems to be no end to the apologetic burden 
 that Balaam's ass can carry. 
 
226 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 knowledge is true. All which things I notice, merely to 
 illustrate the great truth, forced on me by long experi- 
 ence, that it is only from those who enjoy the blessing 
 of a firm hold of the Christian faith that such manifesta- 
 tions of meekness, patience, and charity are to be ex- 
 pected. 
 
 I had imagined that no one who had read my preced- 
 ing papers could entertain a doubt as to my position in 
 respect of the main issue as it has been stated and restated 
 by my opponent : 
 
 an agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to God 
 must not only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching, 
 but must deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in which he 
 lived and died.* 
 
 That is said to be " the simple question which is at issue 
 between us," and the three testimonies to that teaching 
 and those convictions selected are the Sermon on the 
 Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Story of the Passion. 
 
 My answer, reduced to its briefest form, has been : 
 In the first place, the evidence is such that the exact 
 nature of the teachings and the convictions of Jesus is 
 extremely uncertain, so that what ecclesiastics are pleased 
 to call a denial of them may be nothing of the kind. 
 And, in the second place, if Jesus taught the demonologi- 
 cal system involved in the Gadarene story — if a belief 
 in that system formed a part of the spiritual convictions 
 in which he lived and died — then I, for my part, unhesi- 
 tatingly refuse belief in that teaching, and deny the real- 
 ity of those spiritual convictions. And I go further and 
 add, that exactly in so far as it can be proved that Jesus 
 sanctioned the essentially pagan demonological theories 
 
 * Page 131. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHEISTIANITY. 227 
 
 current among the Jews of his age, exactly in so far, for 
 me, will his authority in any matter touching the spiritual 
 world be weakened. 
 
 With respect to the first half of my answer, I have 
 pointed out that the Sermon on the Mount, as given in 
 the first Gospel, is, in the opinion of the best critics, a 
 "mosaic work" of materials derived from different 
 sources, and I do not understand that this statement is 
 challenged. The only other Gospel, the third, which 
 contains something like it, makes not only the discourse, 
 but the circumstances under which it was delivered, very 
 different. Now, it is one thing to say that there was 
 something real at the bottom of the two discourses — 
 which is quite possible ; and another to affirm that we 
 have any right to say what that something was, or to fix 
 upon any particular phrase and declare it to be a genuine 
 utterance. Those who pursue theology as a science, and 
 bring to the study an adequate knowledge of the ways of 
 ancient historians, will find no difficulty in providing 
 illustrations of my meaning. I may supply one which 
 has come within range of my own limited vision. 
 
 In Josephus's "History of the Wars of the Jews" 
 (chap, xix) that writer reports a speech which he says 
 Herod made at the opening of a war with the Arabians. 
 It is in the first person, and would naturally be supposed 
 by the reader to be intended for a true version of what 
 Herod said. In the " Antiquities," written some seven- 
 teen years later, the same writer gives another report, also 
 in the first person, of Herod's speech on the same occa- 
 sion. This second oration is twice as long as the first, 
 and though the general tenor of the two speeches is 
 pretty much the same, there is hardly any verbal identity, 
 and a good deal of matter is introduced into the one which 
 
228 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 is absent from the other. Now Josephus prides himself 
 on his accuracy ; people whose fathers might have heard 
 Herod's oration were his contemporaries; and yet his 
 historical sense is so curiously undeveloped, that he can, 
 quite innocently, perpetuate an obvious literary fabrica- 
 tion; for one of the two accounts must be incorrect. 
 Now, if I am asked whether I believe that Herod made 
 some particular statement on this occasion ; whether, for 
 example, he uttered the pious aphorism, " Where God is, 
 there is both multitude and courage," which is given in 
 the " Antiquities," but not in the " Wars," I am com- 
 pelled to say I do not know. One of the two reports 
 must be erroneous, possibly both are : at any rate, I can 
 not tell how much of either is true. And, if some fervent 
 admirer of the Idumean should build up a theory of 
 Herod's piety upon Josephus's evidence that he pro- 
 pounded the aphorism, is it a " mere evasion " to say, in 
 reply, that the evidence that he did utter it is worth- 
 
 It appears again that, adopting the tactics of Cona- 
 char when brought face to face with Hal o' the Wynd, I 
 have been trying to get my simple-minded adversary to 
 follow me on a wild-goose chase through the early his- 
 tory of Christianity, in the hope of escaping impending 
 defeat on the main issue. But I may be permitted to 
 point out that there is an alternative hypothesis which 
 equally fits the facts ; and that, after all, there may have 
 been method in the madness of my supposed panic. 
 
 For suppose it to be established that Gentile Chris- 
 tianity was a totally different thing from the Nazarenism 
 of Jesus and his immediate disciples ; suppose it to be 
 demonstrable that, as early as the sixth decade of our era 
 at least, there were violent divergencies of opinion among 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 229 
 
 the followers of Jesus ; suppose it to be hardly doubtful 
 that the Gospels and the Acts took their present shapes 
 under the influence of these divergencies ; suppose that 
 their authors, and those through whose hands they passed, 
 had notions of historical veracity not more eccentric than 
 those which Josephus occasionally displays — surely the 
 chances that the Gospels are altogether trustworthy 
 records of the teachings of Jesus become very slender. 
 And as the whole of the case of the other side is based 
 on the supposition that they are accurate records (espe- 
 cially of speeches, about which ancient historians are so 
 curiously loose), I really do venture to submit that this 
 part of my argument bears very seriously on the main 
 issue ; and, as ratiocination, is sound to the core. 
 
 Again, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of 
 Jesus on the cross, it appears that I could have had no 
 other motive than the dictates of my native evasiveness. 
 An ecclesiastical dignitary may have respectable reasons 
 for declining a fencing-match " in sight of Gethsemane 
 and Calvary " ; but an ecclesiastical " infidel " ! Never. 
 It is obviously impossible that, in the belief that " the 
 greater includes the less," I, having declared the Gospel 
 evidence in general, as to the sayings of Jesus, to be of 
 questionable value, thought it needless to select, for illus- 
 tration of my views, those particular instances which were 
 likely to be most offensive to persons of another way of 
 thinking. But any supposition that may have been en- 
 tertained that the old familiar tones of the ecclesiastical 
 war- drum will tempt me to engage in such needless dis- 
 cussion had better be renounced. I shall do nothing of 
 the kind. Let it suffice that I ask my readers to turn to 
 the twenty-third chapter of Luke (revised version), verse 
 thirty-four, and he will find in the margin 
 
230 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Some ancient authorities omit : And Jesus said, " Father, for- 
 give them, for they know not what they do." 
 
 So that, even as late as the fourth century, there were 
 ancient authorities, indeed some of the most ancient and 
 weightiest, who either did not know of this utterance, so 
 often quoted as characteristic of Jesus, or did not believe 
 it had been uttered. 
 
 Many years ago, I received an anonymous letter, which 
 abused me heartily for my want of moral courage in not 
 speaking out. I thought that one of the oddest charges 
 an anonymous letter-writer could bring. But I am not 
 sure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article 
 with which I am dealing with accusations of evasion, may 
 not seem odder to those who consider that the main 
 strength of the answers with which I have been favored 
 (in this review and elsewhere) is devoted not to anything 
 in the text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs 
 at page 171.* In this I say : 
 
 Dr. Wace tells us : " It may be asked how far we can rely on the 
 accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects." 
 And he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the 
 assertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by M. Kenan's 
 practical surrender of the adverse case." 
 
 I requested Dr. Wace to point out the passages of 
 M. Kenan's works, in which, as he affirms, this " practical 
 surrender " (not merely as to the age and authorship of 
 the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their historical 
 value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. 
 Now let us consider the parts of Dr. Wace's citation from 
 Renan which are relevant to the issue : 
 
 * Page 17. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 231 
 
 The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as the 
 author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts 
 seems to be a companion of St. Paul — a character which accords 
 completely with St. Luke. I know that more than one objection 
 may be opposed to this reasoning; but one thing, at all events, is 
 beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of 
 the Acts is a man who belonged to the second apostolic generation ; 
 and this suffices for our purpose. 
 
 This is a curious " practical surrender of the adverse 
 case." M. Renan thinks that there is no doubt that the 
 author of the third Gospel is the author of the Acts — a 
 conclusion in which I suppose critics generally agree. He 
 goes on to remark that this person seems to be a compan- 
 ion of St. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of 
 St. Paul. Then, somewhat needlessly, M. Renan points 
 out that there is more than one objection to jumping, 
 from such data as these, to the conclusion that " Luke " 
 is the writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan 
 is content to reduce that which is " beyond doubt " to the 
 fact that the author of the two books is a man of the sec- 
 ond apostolic generation. "Well, it seems to me that I 
 could agree with all that M. Renan considers " beyond 
 doubt " here, without surrendering anything, either 
 "practically " or theoretically. 
 
 Dr. Wace (" Nineteenth Century," March, p. 363) * 
 states that he derives the above citation from the preface 
 of the fifteenth edition of the " Yie de Jesus." My copy 
 of " Les Evangiles," dated 1877, contains a list of Renan's 
 " (Euvres Completes," at the head of which I find " Yie 
 de Jesus," 15 e edition. It is, therefore, a later work than 
 the edition of the " Yie de Jesus " which Dr. Wace quotes. 
 Now " Les Evangiles," as its name implies, treats fully of 
 
 * Page 77. 
 
232 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 the questions respecting the date and authorship of the 
 Gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to use 
 M. Renan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to 
 give a fair account of his views in their full significance, 
 would, I think, refer to the later source. 
 
 If this course had been taken, Dr. Wace might have 
 found some as decided expressions of opinion in favor of 
 Luke's authorship of the third Gospel as he has discov- 
 ered in "The Apostles." I mention this circumstance 
 because I desire to point out that, taking even the strong- 
 est of Kenan's statements, I am still at a loss to see how 
 it justifies that large-sounding phrase " practical surren- 
 der of the adverse case." For, on p. 438 of " Les Evan- 
 giles," Renan speaks of the way in which Luke's " excel- 
 lent intentions " have led him to torture history in the 
 Acts ; he declares Luke to be the founder of that " eter- 
 nal fiction which is called ecclesiastical history " ; and, on 
 the preceding page, he talks of the " myth" of the Ascen- 
 sion — with its mise en scene voulue. At p. 435, I find 
 " Luc, o\\ l'auteur quel qu'il soit du troisieme Evangile " 
 [Luke, or whoever may be the author of the third Gos- 
 pel] ; at p. 280, the accounts of the Passion, the death and 
 the resurrection of Jesus are said to be "peu historiques" 
 [little historical] ; at p. 283, " La valeur historique du 
 troisieme Evangile est surement moindre que celles des 
 deux premiers " [the historical value of the third Gospel 
 is surely less than that of the first two]. 
 
 A Pyrrhic sort of victory for orthodoxy this " surren- 
 der"! And, all the while, the scientific student of the- 
 ology knows that the more reason there may be to believe 
 that Luke was the companion of Paul, the more doubtful 
 becomes his credibility, if he really wrote the Acts. For, 
 in that case, he could not fail to have been acquainted 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 233 
 
 with Paul's account of the Jerusalem conference, and he 
 must have consciously misrepresented it. We may next 
 turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation (" Nine- 
 teenth Century," p. 365)* touching the first Gospel : 
 
 St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the dis- 
 courses. Here are " the oracles " — the very notes taken while the 
 memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and definite. 
 
 M. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as 
 to the existence of a collection of " logia," having a differ- 
 ent origin from the text in which they are imbedded, in 
 Matthew. "Notes" are somewhat suggestive of a short- 
 hand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for M. 
 Renan assumes that these " notes " were taken, not at the 
 time of the delivery of the "logia," but subsequently, 
 while (as he assumes) the memory of them was living and 
 definite ; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan leaves 
 open the question of the general historical value of the 
 first Gospel, while it is obvious that the accuracy of 
 "notes," taken, not at the time of delivery, but from 
 memory, is a matter about which more than one opinion 
 may be fairly held. Moreover, Renan expressly calls at- 
 tention to the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic 
 "logia" from later additions of the same kind ("Les 
 Evangiles," p. 201). The fact is, there is no contradiction 
 here to that opinion about the first Gospel which is ex- 
 pressed in " Les Evangiles " (p. 175. ) 
 
 The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence of 
 that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He completes 
 it in two fashions — first, by the insertion of those long discourses 
 which gave their chief value to the Hebrew Gospels ; then by adding 
 traditions of a more modern formation, results of successive devel- 
 
234 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 opments of the legend, and to which the Christian consciousness 
 already attached infinite value. 
 
 M. Kenan goes on to suggest that besides " Mark," 
 "pseudo-Matthew" used an Aramaic version of the Gos- 
 pel originally set forth in that dialect. Finally, as to the 
 second Gospel (" Nineteenth Century," p. 365) : * 
 
 He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond 
 doubt, from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with the 
 supposition that this eye-witness . . . was the apostle Peter himself, 
 as Papias has it. 
 
 Let us consider this citation also by the light of " Les 
 Evangiles" : 
 
 This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, in 
 a sense, the work of Peter ; it represents the way in which Peter 
 was accustomed to relate the life of Jesus (p. 116). 
 
 M. Kenan goes on to say that, as an historical docu- 
 ment, the Gospel of Mark has a great superiority (p. 116), 
 but Mark has a motive for omitting the discourses ; and 
 he attaches a " puerile importance " to miracles (p. 117). 
 The Gospel of Mark is less a legend than a biography 
 written with credulity (p. 118). It would be rash to say 
 that Mark has not been interpolated and retouched 
 (p. 120). 
 
 If any one thinks that I have not been warranted in 
 drawing a sharp distinction between "scientific theolo- 
 gians" and " counsel for creeds" ; or that my warning 
 against the too ready acceptance of certain declarations as 
 to the state of biblical criticism was needless ; or that my 
 anxiety as to the sense of the word " practical " was super- 
 fluous, let him compare the statement that M. Eenan has 
 
 * Page 81. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 235 
 
 made a "practical surrender of the adverse case" with 
 the facts just set forth. For what is the adverse case ? 
 The question, as Dr. Wace puts it, is, " It may be asked 
 how far can we rely on the accounts we possess of our 
 Lord's teaching on these subjects." It will be obvious 
 that M. Kenan's statements amount to an adverse* answer 
 — to a "practical" denial that any great reliance can be 
 placed on these accounts. He does not believe that Mat- 
 thew, the apostle, wrote the first Gospel ; he does not pro- 
 fess to know who is responsible for the collection of " lo- 
 gia," or how many of them are authentic; though he 
 calls the second Gospel the most historical, he points out 
 that it is written with credulity, and may have been in- 
 terpolated and retouched; and as to the author "quel 
 qu'il soit " of the third Gospel, who is to " rely on the ac- 
 counts" of a writer who deserves the cavalier treatment 
 which "Luke" meets with at M. Eenan's hands % 
 
 I repeat what I have already more than once said, 
 that the question of the age and the authorship of the 
 Gospels has not, in my judgment, the importance which 
 is so commonly assigned to it ; for the simple reason that 
 the reports, even of eye-witnesses, would not suffice to 
 justify belief in a large and essential part of their con- 
 tents ; on the contrary, these reports would discredit the 
 witnesses. The Gadarene miracle, for example, is so ex- 
 tremely improbable, that the fact of its being reported by 
 three, even independent, authorities could not justify be- 
 lief in it unless we had the clearest evidence as to their 
 capacity as observers and as interpreters of their observa- 
 tions. But it is evident that the three authorities are not 
 independent ; that they have simply adopted a legend, of 
 which there were two versions ; and instead of their 
 proving its truth, it suggests their superstitious credulity; 
 
236 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 so that, if " Matthew," " Mark," and " Luke " are really 
 responsible for the Gospels, it is not the better for the 
 Gadarene story, but the worse for them. 
 
 A wonderful amount of controversial capital has been 
 made out of my assertion in the note to which I have re- 
 ferred, as an obiter dictum of no consequence to my ar- 
 gument, that, if Kenan's work* were non-extant, the 
 main results of biblical criticism as set forth in the works 
 of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Yolkmar, for example, would 
 not be sensibly affected. I thought I had explained it 
 satisfactorily already, but it seems that my explanation 
 has only exhibited still more of my native perversity, so 
 I ask for one more chance. 
 
 In the course of the historical development of any 
 branch of science, what is universally observed is this : 
 that the men who make epochs and are the real archi- 
 tects of the fabric of exact knowledge are those who in- 
 troduce fruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man 
 who does this pushes his idea or his method too far ; or, 
 if he does not, his school is sure to do so, and those who 
 follow have to reduce his work to its proper value, and 
 assign it its place in the whole. Not unfrequently they, 
 in their turn, overdo the critical process, and, in trying to 
 eliminate errors, throw away truth. 
 
 Thus, as I said, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, 
 really " set forth the results " of a developing science, al- 
 though they often heartily contradict one another. Not- 
 withstanding this circumstance, modern classificatory 
 method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the 
 results of the work of Linnaeus ; the modern conception 
 of biology, as a science, and of its relation to climatology, 
 
 * I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M. Kenan's labors or 
 intended to speak slightingly of them. 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 237 
 
 geography, and geology, are as largely rooted in the re- 
 sults of the labors of Buffon ; comparative anatomy and 
 paleontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier's results ; while 
 invertebrate zoology and the revival of the idea of evolu- 
 tion are intimately dependent on the results of the work 
 of Lamarck. In other words, the main results of biology 
 up to the early years of this century are to be found in, 
 or spring out of, the works of these men. 
 
 So, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate 
 the idea of taking the mythopoeic faculty into account in 
 the development of the Gospel narratives ; and, though 
 he may have exaggerated the influence of that faculty, 
 obliged scientific theology hereafter to take that element 
 into serious consideration ; so Baur, in giving prominence 
 to the cardinal fact of the divergence of the Nazarene 
 and Pauline tendencies in the primitive Church ; so 
 Beuss, in setting a marvelous example of the cool and 
 dispassionate application of the principles of scientific 
 criticism over the whole field of Scripture ; so Yolkmar, 
 in his clear and forcible statement of the Nazarene lim- 
 itations of Jesus, contributed results of permanent value 
 in scientific theology. I took these names as they oc- 
 curred to me. Undoubtedly, I might have advantage- 
 ously added to them ; perhaps I might have made a bet- 
 ter selection. But it really is absurd to try to make out 
 that I did not know that these writers widely disagree ; 
 and I believe that no scientific theologian will deny that, 
 in principle, what I have said is perfectly correct. Ec- 
 clesiastical advocates, of course, can not be expected to 
 take this view of the matter. To them, these mere seek- 
 ers after truth, in so far as their results are unfavorable to 
 the creed the clerics have to support, are more or less " in- 
 fidels," or favorers of " infidelity " ; and the only thing 
 
238 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 they care to see, or probably can see, is the fact that, in a 
 great many matters, the truth-seekers differ from one an- 
 other, and therefore can easily be exhibited to the public, 
 as if they did nothing else ; as if any one who referred to 
 them, as having each and all contributed his share to the 
 results of theological science, was merely showing his ig- 
 norance; and, as if a charge of inconsistency could be 
 based on the fact that he himself often disagrees with 
 what they say. I have never lent a shadow of foundation 
 to the assumption that I am a follower of either Strauss, 
 or Baur, or Reuss, or Yolkmar, or Renan ; my debt to 
 these eminent men — so far my superiors in theological 
 knowledge — is, indeed, great ; yet it is not for their opin- 
 ions, but for those I have been able to form for myself, 
 by their help. 
 
 In " Agnosticism : a Rejoinder " (p. 96) I have re- 
 ferred to the difficulties under which those professors of 
 the science of theology, whose tenure of their posts de- 
 pends on the results of their investigations, must labor ; 
 and, in a note, I add : 
 
 Imagine that all our chairs of astronomy had been founded in 
 the fourteenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to 
 sign Ptolemaic articles. In that case, with every respect for the 
 efforts of persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth, 
 I think men of common sense would go elsewhere to learn as- 
 tronomy. 
 
 I did not write this paragraph without a knowledge 
 that its sense would be open to the kind of perversion 
 which it has suffered ; but, if that was clear, the necessity 
 for the statement was still clearer. It is my deliberate 
 opinion : I reiterate it ; and I say that, in my judgment, 
 it is extremely inexpedient that any subject which calls 
 
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 239 
 
 itself a science should be intrusted to teachers who are 
 debarred from freely following out scientific methods to 
 their legitimate conclusions, whatever those conclusions 
 may be. If I may borrow a phrase paraded at the Church 
 Congress, I think it " ought to be unpleasant " for any 
 man of science to find himself in the position of such a 
 teacher. 
 
 Human nature is not altered by seating it in a pro- 
 fessorial chair, even of theology. I have very little doubt 
 that if, in the year 1859, the tenure of my office had de- 
 pended upon my adherence to the doctrines of Cuvier, 
 the objections to those set forth in the " Origin of Spe- 
 cies " would have had a halo of gravity about them that, 
 being free to teach what I pleased, I failed to discover. 
 And, in making that statement, it does not appear to me 
 that I am confessing that I should have been debarred by 
 " selfish interests " from making candid inquiry, or that 
 I should have been biased by " sordid motives." I hope 
 that even such a fragment of moral sense as may remain 
 in an ecclesiastical "infidel" might have got me through 
 the difficulty ; but it would be unworthy to deny or dis- 
 guise the fact that a very serious difficulty must have 
 been created for me by the nature of my tenure. And 
 let it be observed that the temptation, in my case, would 
 have been far slighter than in that of a professor of the- 
 ology; whatever biological doctrine I had repudiated, 
 nobody I cared for would have thought the worse of me 
 for so doing. No scientific journals would have howled 
 me down, as the religious newspapers howled down my 
 too honest friend, the late Bishop of Natal ; nor would 
 my colleagues in the Eoyal Society have turned their 
 backs upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him. 
 
 I say these facts are obvious, and that it is wholesome 
 
24:0 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and needful that they should be stated. It is in the in- 
 terests of theology, if it be a science, and it is in the 
 interests of those teachers of theology who desire to be 
 something better than counsel for creeds, that it should 
 be taken to heart. The seeker after theological truth, 
 and that only, will no more suppose that I have insulted 
 him than the prisoner who works in fetters will try to 
 pick a quarrel with me, if I suggest that he would get 
 on better if the fetters were knocked off; unless, indeed, 
 as it is said does happen in the course of long captivities, 
 that the victim at length ceases to feel the weight of his 
 chains or even takes to hugging them, as if they were 
 honorable ornaments.* 
 
 * To-day's " Times " contains a report of a remarkable speech by Prince 
 Bismarck, in which he tells the Reichstag that he has long given up invest- 
 ing in foreign stock, lest so doing should mislead his judgment in his 
 transactions with foreign states. Does this declaration prove that the chan- 
 cellor accuses himself of being " sordid " and " selfish," or does it not rather 
 show that, even in dealing with himself, he remains the man of realities ? 
 
X. 
 
 "COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM."* 
 
 A WORD WITH PROFESSOR HUXLEY. 
 By W. H. MALLOCK. 
 
 I welcome the discussion which, in this review and 
 elsewhere, has been lately revived in earnest as to the 
 issue between positive science and theology. I especially 
 welcome Prof. Huxley's recent contribution to it, to 
 which presently I propose to refer in detail. In that con- 
 tribution — an article with the title " Agnosticism," which 
 appeared a month or two since in " The Nineteenth Cent- 
 ury " — I shall point out things which will probably startle 
 the public, the author himself included, in case he cares 
 to attend to them. 
 
 Before going further, however, let me ask and answer 
 this question. If Prof. Huxley should tell us that he 
 does not believe in God, why should we think the state- 
 ment, as coming from him, worthy of an attention which 
 we certainly should not give it if made by a person less 
 distinguished than himself ? The answer to this question 
 is as follows : We should think Prof. Huxley's statement 
 
 * " The Bishop of Peterborough departed so far from his customary 
 courtesy and self-respect as to speak of ' cowardly agnosticism.' " — Prof. 
 Huxley, p. 15. 
 11 
 
242 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 worth considering for two reasons : Firstly, he speaks as 
 a man pre-eminently well acquainted with certain classes 
 of facts. Secondly, he speaks as a man eminent, if not 
 pre-eminent, for the vigor and honesty with which he 
 has faced these facts, and drawn certain conclusions from 
 them. Accordingly, when he sums up for us the main 
 conclusions of science, he speaks not in his own name, but 
 in the name of the physical universe, as modern science 
 has thus far apprehended it ; and similarly, when from 
 these conclusions he reasons about religion, the bulk of 
 the arguments which he advances against theology are in 
 no way peculiar to himself, or gain any of their strength 
 from his reputation ; they are virtually the arguments of 
 the whole non- Christian world. He may possibly have, 
 on some points, views peculiar to himself. He may also 
 have certain peculiar ways of stating them. But it re- 
 quires no great critical acuteness, it requires only ordinary 
 fairness, to separate those of his utterances which repre- 
 sent facts generally accepted, and arguments generally in- 
 fluential, from those which represent only some peculiar- 
 ity of his own. Now, all this is true not of Prof. Huxley 
 only. "With various qualifications, it is equally true of 
 writers with whom Prof. Huxley is apparently in con- 
 stant antagonism, and who also exhibit constant antago- 
 nism among themselves. I am at this moment thinking 
 of two especially — Mr. Frederic Harrison and Mr. Her- 
 bert Spencer. Mr. Harrison, in his capacity of religious 
 teacher, is constantly attacking both Mr. Spencer and 
 Prof. Huxley. Prof. Huxley repays Mr. Harrison's blows 
 with interest ; and there are certain questions of a relig- 
 ious and practical character as to which he and Mr. Spen- 
 cer would be hardly on better terms. But, underneath 
 the several questions they quarrel about, there is a solid 
 
" CO WAEDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 243 
 
 substructure of conclusions, methods, and arguments, as 
 to which they all agree — agree in the most absolute way. 
 What this agreement consists in, and what practical bear- 
 ing, if taken by itself, it must have on our views of life, I 
 shall now try to explain in a brief and unquestionable 
 summary ; and in that summary, what the reader will 
 have before him is not the private opinion of these emi- 
 nent men, but ascertained facts with regard to man and 
 the universe ; and the conclusions which, if we have noth- 
 ing else to assist us, are necessarily drawn from those facts 
 by the necessary operations of the mind. The mention 
 of names, however, has this signal convenience — it will 
 keep the reader convinced that I am not speaking at ran- 
 dom, and will supply him with standards by which he can 
 easily test the accuracy and the sufficiency of my asser- 
 tions. 
 
 The case, then, of science, or modern thought, against 
 theological religion or theism, and the Christian religion 
 in particular, substantially is as follows : 
 
 In the first place, it is now an established fact that the 
 physical universe, whether it ever had a beginning or no, 
 is, at all events, of an antiquity beyond what the imagina- 
 tion can realize ; and also that, whether or no it is limited, 
 its extent is so vast as to be equally unimaginable. Sci- 
 ence may not pronounce it absolutely to be either eternal 
 or infinite, but science does say this, that so far as our 
 faculties can carry us they reveal to us no hint of either 
 limit, end, or beginning. 
 
 It is further established that the stuff out of which the 
 universe is made is the same everywhere and follows the 
 same laws — whether at Clapham Common or in the far- 
 thest system of stars — and that this has always been so to 
 the remotest of the penetrable abysses of time. It is es- 
 
244 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 tablished yet further that the universe in its present con- 
 dition has evolved itself out of simpler conditions, solely 
 in virtue of the qualities which still inhere in its elements, 
 and make to-day what it is, just as they have made all 
 yesterdays. 
 
 Lastly, in this physical universe science has included 
 man — not alone his body, but his life and his mind also. 
 Every operation of thought, every fact of consciousness, 
 it has shown to be associated in a constant and definite 
 way with the presence and with certain conditions of cer- 
 tain particles of matter, which are shown, in their turn, to 
 be in their last analysis absolutely similar to the matter of 
 gases, plants, or minerals. The demonstration lias every 
 appearance of being morally complete. The interval be- 
 tween mud and mind, seemingly so impassable, has been 
 traversed by a series of closely consecutive steps. Mind, 
 which was once thought to have descended into matter, 
 is shown forming itself, and slowly emerging out of it. 
 From forms of life so low that naturalists can hardly de- 
 cide whether it is right to class them as plants or animals, 
 up to the life that is manifested in saints, heroes, or 
 philosophers, there is no break to be detected in the long 
 process of development. There is no step in the process 
 where science finds any excuse for postulating or even 
 suspecting the presence of any new factor. 
 
 And the same holds good of the lowest forms of life, 
 and what Prof. Huxley calls " the common matter of the 
 universe." It is true that experimentalists have been 
 thus far unable to observe the generation of the former 
 out of the latter, but this failure may be accounted for in 
 many ways, and does nothing to weaken the overwhelm- 
 ing evidence of analogy that such generation really does 
 take place or has taken place at some earlier period. 
 
" GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 245 
 
 " Carbonic acid, water, and ammonia," says Prof. Hux- 
 ley, " certainly possess no properties but those of ordinary 
 matter. . . . But when they are brought together under 
 certain conditions they give rise to protoplasm ; and this 
 protoplasm exhibits the phenomenon of life. I see no 
 breach in this series of steps in molecular complication, 
 and I am unable to understand why the language which 
 is applicable to any one form of the series may not be 
 used to any of the others." * 
 
 So much, then, for what modern science teaches us as 
 to the universe and the evolution of man. We will 
 presently consider the ways, sufficiently obvious as they 
 are, in which this seems to conflict with the ideas of all 
 theism and theology. But first for a moment let us turn 
 to what it teaches us also with regard to the history and 
 the special claims of Christianity. Approaching Chris- 
 tianity on the side of its alleged history, it establishes the 
 three following points : It shows us first that this alleged 
 history, with the substantial truth of which Christianity 
 stands or falls, contains a number of statements which are 
 demonstrably at variance with fact ; secondly, that it con- 
 tains others which, though very probably true, are en- 
 tirely misinterpreted through the ignorance of the writers 
 who recorded them; and, thirdly, that though the rest 
 may not be demonstrably false, yet those among them 
 most essential to the Christian doctrine are so monstrous- 
 ly improbable and so utterly unsupported by evidence that 
 we have no more ground for believing in them than we 
 have in the wolf of Komulus. 
 
 Such, briefly stated, are the main conclusions of sci- 
 ence in so far as they bear on theology and the theologic 
 
 * " Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews," pp. 114, 117. 
 
246 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 conception of humanity. Let us now consider exactly 
 what their bearing is. Prof. Huxley distinctly tells us 
 that the knowledge we have reached as to the nature of 
 things in general does not enable us to deduce from it 
 any absolute denial either of the existence of a personal 
 God or of an immortal soul in man, or even of the possi- 
 bility and the actual occurence of miracles. On the con- 
 trary, he would believe to-morrow in the miraculous his- 
 tory of Christianity if only there were any evidence suffi- 
 ciently cogent in its favor; and on the authority of 
 Christianity he would believe in God and in man's im- 
 mortality. Christianity, however, is the only religion in 
 the world whose claims to a miraculous authority are 
 worthy of serious consideration, and science, as we have 
 seen, considers these claims to be unfounded. What fol- 
 lows is this — whether there be a God or no, and whether 
 he has given us immortal souls or no, science declares 
 bluntly that he has never informed us of either fact ; and 
 if there is anything to warrant any belief in either, it can 
 be found only in the study of the natural universe. Ac- 
 cordingly, to the natural universe science goes, and we 
 have just seen what it finds there. Part of what it finds 
 bears specially on the theologic conception of God, and 
 part bears specially on the theologic conception of man. 
 With regard to God, to an intelligent creator and ruler, 
 it finds him on every ground to be a baseless and a super- 
 fluous hypothesis. In former conditions of knowledge 
 it admits that this was otherwise — that the hypothesis 
 then was not only natural but necessary ; for there were 
 many seeming mysteries which could not be explained 
 without it. But now the case has been altogether re- 
 versed. One after another these mysteries have been 
 analyzed, not entirely, but to this extent at all events, 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM: 1 247 
 
 that the hypothesis of an intelligent creator is not only 
 nowhere necessary, but it generally introduces far more 
 difficulties than it solves. Thus, though we can not 
 demonstrate that a creator does not exist, we have no 
 grounds whatever for supposing that he does. With re- 
 gard to man, what science finds is analogous. Accord- 
 ing to theology, he is a being specially related to God, 
 and his conduct and his destinies have an importance 
 which dwarfs the sum of material things into insignifi- 
 cance. But science exhibits him in a very different light ; 
 it shows that in none of the qualities once thought pe- 
 culiar to him does he differ essentially from other phe- 
 nomena of the universe. It shows that just as there are 
 no grounds for supposing the existence of a creator, so 
 there are none for supposing the existence of an immor- 
 tal human soul ; while as for man's importance relative 
 to the rest of the universe, it shows that, not only as an 
 individual, but also as a race, he is less than a bubble of 
 foam is when compared with the whole sea. The few 
 thousand years over which history takes us are as nothing 
 when compared with the ages for which the human race 
 has existed. The whole existence of the human race is 
 as nothing when compared with the existence of the 
 earth ; and the earth's history is but a second and the 
 earth but a grain of dust in the vast duration and vast 
 magnitude of the All. Nor is this true of the past only, 
 it is true of the future also. As the individual dies, so 
 also will the race die ; nor would a million of additional 
 years add anything to its comparative importance. Just 
 as it emerged out of lifeless matter yesterday, so will it 
 sink again into lifeless matter to-morrow. Or, to put the 
 case more briefly still, it is merely one fugitive manifes- 
 tation of the same matter and force which, always obedi- 
 
24:8 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ent to the same unchanging laws, manifest themselves 
 equally in a dung-heap, in a pig, and in a planet — matter 
 and force which, so far as our faculties can carry us, have 
 existed and will exist everywhere and forever, and which 
 nowhere, so far as our faculties avail to read them, show 
 any sign, as a whole, of meaning, of design, or of intelli- 
 gence. 
 
 It is possible that Prof. Huxley, or some other scien- 
 tific authority, may be able to find fault with some of my 
 sentences or my expressions, and to show that they are 
 not professionally or professorially accurate. If they care 
 for such trifling criticism they are welcome to the enjoy- 
 ment of it ; but I defy any one to show, putting expres- 
 sion aside and paying attention only to the general mean- 
 ing of what I have stated, that the foregoing account 
 of what science claims to have established is not substan- 
 tially true, and is not admitted to be so by any contem- 
 porary thinker who opposes science to theism, from Mr. 
 Frederic Harrison to Prof. Huxley himself. 
 
 And now let us pass on to something which in itself 
 is merely a matter of words, but which will bring what 
 I have said thus far into the circle of contemporary dis- 
 cussion. The men who are mainly responsible for hav- 
 ing forced the above views on the world, who have un- 
 folded to us the verities of nature and human history, and 
 have felt constrained by these to abandon their old relig- 
 ious convictions — these men and their followers have by 
 common consent agreed, in this country, to call them- 
 selves by the name of agnostics. Now there has been 
 much quarreling of late among these agnostics as to what 
 agnosticism — the thing which unites them — is. It must 
 be obvious, however, to every impartial observer, that the 
 differences between them are little more than verbal, and 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 249 
 
 arise from bad writing rather than from different reason- 
 ing. Substantially the meaning of one and all of them 
 is the same. Let us take, for instance, the two who are 
 most ostentatiously opposed to each other, and have lately 
 been exhibiting themselves, in this and other reviews, like 
 two terriers each at the other's throat. I need hardly say 
 that I mean Prof. Huxley and Mr. Harrison. 
 
 Some writers, Prof. Huxley says, Mr. Harrison among 
 them, have been speaking of agnosticism as if it was a 
 creed or a faith or a philosophy. Prof. Huxley proclaims 
 himself to be " dazed " and " bewildered " by the state- 
 ments. Agnosticism, he says, is not any one of these 
 things. It is simply — I will give his definition in his 
 own words — 
 
 a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a 
 single principle. . . . Positively, the principle may be expressed : 
 In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take 
 you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively : 
 In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are cer- 
 tain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be 
 the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he 
 shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the 
 future may have in store for him. 
 
 Now anything worse expressed than this for the pur- 
 pose of the discussion he is engaged in, or, indeed, for 
 the purpose of conveying his own general meaning, it is 
 hardly possible to imagine. Agnosticism, as generally 
 understood, may, from one point of view, be no doubt 
 rightly described as " a method." But is it a method 
 with no results, or with results that are of no inter- 
 est ? If so, there would be hardly a human being idiot 
 enough to waste a thought upon it. The interest resides 
 in its results, and its results solely, and specially in those 
 
250 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 results that effect our ideas about religion. Accordingly, 
 when the word agnosticism is now used in discussion, the 
 meaning uppermost in the minds of those who use it is 
 not a method, but the results of a method, in their relig- 
 ious bearings ; and the method is of interest only in so 
 far as it leads to these. Agnosticism means, therefore, 
 precisely what Prof. Huxley says it does not mean. It 
 means a creed, it means a faith, it means a religious or 
 irreligious philosophy. And this is the meaning attrib- 
 uted to it not only by the world at large, but in reality by 
 Prof. Huxley also quite as much as by anybody. I will 
 not lay too much stress on the fact that, in the passage 
 just quoted, having first fiercely declared agnosticism to 
 be nothing but a method, in the very next sentence he 
 himself speaks of it as a " faith." I will pass on to a pas- 
 sage that is far more unambiguous. It is taken from the 
 same essay. It is as follows : 
 
 " ' Agnosticism [says Mr. Harrison] is a stage in the evolution of 
 religion, an entirely negative stage, the point reached by physicists, 
 a purely mental conclusion, with no relation to things social at all.' 
 I am [says Prof. Huxley] quite dazed by this declaration. Are there 
 then any ' conclusions ' that are not ' purely mental ' ? Is there no 
 relation to things social in ' mental conclusions' which affect men's 
 whole conception of life? . . . 'Agnosticism is a stage in the evo- 
 lution of religion.' If . . . Mr. Harrison, like most people, means 
 by ' religion ' theology, then, in my judgment, agnosticism can be 
 said to be a stage in its evolution only as death may be said to be 
 the final stage in the evolution of life." 
 
 Let us consider what this means. It means precisely 
 what every one else has all along been saying, that agnos- 
 ticism is to all intents and purposes a doctrine, a creed, a 
 faith, or a philosophy, the essence of which is the nega- 
 tion of theologic religion. JNow the fundamental propo- 
 sitions of theologic religion are these : There is a personal 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 251 
 
 God, who watches over the lives of men ; and there is an 
 immortal soul in man, distinct from the flux of matter. 
 Agnosticism, then, expressed in the briefest terms, 
 amounts to two articles — not of belief, but of disbelief. / 
 do not believe in any God, personal, intelligent, or with 
 a purpose ; or, at least, with any purpose that has any 
 concern with man. I do not believe in any immortal 
 soul, or in any personality or consciousness surviving 
 the dissolution of the body. 
 
 Here I anticipate from many quarters a rebuke, which 
 men of science are very fond of administering. I shall 
 be told that agnostics never say " there is no God," and 
 never say " there is no immortal soul." Prof. Huxley is 
 often particularly vehement on this point, He would 
 have us believe that a dogmatic atheist is, in his view, as 
 foolish as a dogmatic theist ; and that an agnostic, true to 
 the etymology of his name, is not a man who denies God, 
 but who has no opinion about him. But this — even if 
 true in some dim and remote sense — is for practical pur- 
 poses a mere piece of solemn quibbling, and is utterly 
 belied by the very men who use it whenever they raise 
 their voices to speak to the world at large. The agnos- 
 tics, if they shrink from saying that there is no God, at 
 least tell us that there is nothing to suggest that there is 
 one, and much to suggest that there is not. Surely, if 
 they never spoke more strongly than this, for practical 
 purposes this is an absolute denial. Prof. Huxley, for 
 instance, is utterly unable to demonstrate that an evening 
 edition of the " Times " is not printed in Sirius ; but if 
 any action depended on our believing this to be true, he 
 would certainly not hesitate to declare that it was a foolish 
 and fantastic falsehood. Who would think the better of 
 him — who would not think the worse — if in this matter 
 
252 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 he gravely declared himself to be an agnostic? And 
 precisely the same may be said of him with regard to the 
 existence of God. For all practical purposes he is not 
 in doubt about it. He denies it. I need not, however, 
 content myself with my own reasoning. I find Prof. 
 Huxley himself indorsing every word that I have just 
 uttered. He declares that such questions as are treated 
 of in volumes of divinity "are essentially questions of 
 lunar politics, . . . not worth the attention of men who 
 have work to do in the world " : and he cites Hume's ad- 
 vice with regard to such volumes as being " most wise " — 
 " Commit them to the flames, for they can contain noth- 
 ing but sophistry and illusion." * Quotations of a similar 
 import might be indefinitely multiplied ; but it will be 
 enough to add to this the statements quoted already, that 
 agnosticism is to theologic religion what death is to life ; 
 and that physiology does but deepen and complete the 
 gloom of the gloomiest motto of paganism — " Debemur 
 morti." If then agnosticism is not an absolute and dog- 
 matic denial of the fundamental propositions of theology, 
 it differs from an absolute and dogmatic denial in a de- 
 gree that is so trivial as to be, in the words of Prof. Hux- 
 ley himself, " not worth the attention of men who have 
 work to do in the world." For all practical purposes and 
 according to the real opinion of Prof. Huxley and Mr. 
 Harrison equally, agnosticism is not doubt, is not suspen- 
 sion of judgment ; but it is a denial of what " most people 
 mean by religion " — that is to say, the fundamental propo- 
 sitions of theology, so absolute that Prof. Huxley com- 
 pares it to their death. 
 
 And now let us pass on to the next point in our argu- 
 
 * "Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews," p. 125. 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 253 
 
 ment, which I will introduce by quoting Prof. Huxley 
 again. This denial of the fundamental propositions of 
 theology " affects," he says, " men's whole conception of 
 life." Let us consider how. By the Christian world, 
 life was thought to be important owing to its connection 
 with some unseen universe, full of interests and issues 
 which were too great for the mind to grasp at present, 
 but in which, for good or evil, we should each of us one 
 day share, taking our place among the awful things of 
 eternity. But at the touch of the agnostic doctrine this 
 unseen universe bursts like a bubble, melts like an empty 
 dream ; and all the meaning which it once imparted to 
 life vanishes from its surface like mists from a field at 
 morning. In every sense but one, which is exclusively 
 physical, man is remorselessly cut adrift from the eternal ; 
 and whatever importance or interest anything has for any 
 of us, must be derived altogether from the shifting pains 
 or pleasures which go to make up our momentary span 
 of life, or the life of our race, which in the illimitable 
 history of the All is an incident just as momentary. 
 
 Now supposing the importance and interest which life 
 has thus lost can not be replaced in any other way, will 
 life really have suffered any practical change and degra- 
 dation ? To this question our agnostics with one consent 
 say Yes. Prof. Huxley says that if theologic denial leads 
 us to nothing but materialism, " the beauty of a life may 
 be destroyed," and " its energies paralyzed " ; * and that 
 no one, not historically blind, " is likely to underrate the 
 importance of the Christian faith as a factor in human 
 history, or to doubt that some substitute genuine enough 
 and worthy enough to replace it will arise." f Mr. Spen- 
 
 * " Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,' 1 p. 127. f Page 50. 
 
254 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 cer says the same thing with even greater clearness : 
 while, as for Mr. Harrison, it is needless to quote from 
 him ; for half of what he has written is an amplification 
 of these statements. 
 
 It is admitted, then, that life, in some very practical 
 sense, will be ruined if science, having destroyed theologic 
 religion, can not put, or allow to be put, some other re- 
 ligion in place of it. But we must not content ourselves 
 with this general language. Life will be ruined, we say. 
 Let us consider to what extent and how. There is a good 
 deal in life which obviously will not be touched at all — 
 that is to say, a portion of which is called the moral code. 
 Theft, murder, some forms of lying and dishonesty, and 
 some forms of sexual license, are inconsistent with the 
 welfare of any society ; and society, in self-defense, would 
 still condemn and prohibit them, even supposing it had 
 no more religion than a tribe of gibbering monkeys. 
 But the moral code thus retained would consist of prohi- 
 bitions only, and of such prohibitions only as could be 
 enforced by external sanctions. Since, then, this much 
 would survive the loss of religion, let us consider what 
 would be lost along with it. Mr. Spencer, in general 
 terms, has told us plainly enough*. What would be lost, 
 he says, is, in the first place, " our ideas of goodness, rec- 
 titude, or duty," or, to use a single word, "morality." 
 This is no contradiction of what has just been said, for 
 morality is not obedience, enforced or even instinctive, to 
 laws which have an external sanction, but an active co- 
 operation with the spirit of such laws, under pressure of 
 a sanction that resides in our own wills. But not only 
 would morality be lost, or this desire to work actively for 
 the social good ; there would be lost also every higher 
 conception of what the social good or of what our own 
 
" GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 255 
 
 good is ; and men would, as Mr. Spencer says, " become 
 chiefly absorbed in the immediate and the relative."* 
 Prof. Huxley admits in effect precisely the same thing 
 when he says that the tendency of systematic materialism 
 is to " paralyze the energies of life," and " to destroy its 
 beauty." 
 
 Let us try to put the matter a little more concisely. 
 It is admitted by our agnostics that the most valuable ele- 
 ment in our life is our sense of duty, coupled with obedi- 
 ence to its dictates ; and this sense of duty derives both 
 its existence and its power over us from religion, and 
 from religion alone. How it derived them from the 
 Christian religion is obvious. The Christian religion 
 prescribed it to us as the voice of God to the soul, appeal- 
 ing as it were to all our most powerful passions — to our 
 fear, to our hope, and to our love. Hope gave it a mean- 
 ing to us, and love and fear gave it a sanction. The ag- 
 nostics have got rid of God and the soul together, with 
 the loves; and fears, and hopes by which the two were 
 connected. The problem before them is to discover some 
 other considerations — that is, some other religion — which 
 shall invest duty with the solemn meaning and authority 
 derivable no longer from these. Our agnostics, as we 
 know, declare themselves fully able to solve it. Mr. 
 Spencer and Mr. Harrison, though the solution of each is 
 different, declare not only that some new religion is ready 
 for us, but that it is a religion higher and more efficacious 
 than the old ; while Prof. Huxley, though less prophetic 
 and sanguine, rebukes those " who are alarmed lest 
 
 * " Since the beginning, religion has had the all-essential office of pre- 
 venting men from being chiefly absorbed in the relative or the immediate, 
 acd of awaking them to a consciousness of something beyond it." — " First 
 Principles," p. 100. 
 
256 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 man's moral nature be debased," and declares that a 
 wise man like Hume would merely " smile at their per- 
 plexities." * 
 
 Let us now consider what this new religion is — or 
 rather these new religions, for we are offered more than 
 one. So far as form goes, indeed, we are offered several. 
 They can, however, all of them be resolved into two, 
 resting on two entirely different bases, though sometimes, 
 if not usually, offered to our acceptance in combination. 
 One of these, which is called by some of its literary ad- 
 herents Positivism or the Religion of Humanity, is based 
 on two propositions with regard to the human race. The 
 first proposition is that it is constantly though slowly im- 
 proving, and will one day reach a condition thoroughly 
 satisfactory to itself. The second proposition is that this 
 remote consummation can be made so interesting to the 
 present and to all intervening generations that they will 
 strain every nerve to bring it about and hasten it. Thus, 
 though humanity is admitted to be absolutely a fleeting 
 phenomenon in the universe, it is presented relatively as 
 of the utmost moment to the individual ; and duty is sup- 
 plied with a constant meaning by hope, and with a con- 
 stant motive by sympathy. The basis of the other re- 
 ligion is not only different from this, but opposed to it. 
 Just as this demands that we turn away from the uni- 
 verse, and concentrate our attention upon humanity, so 
 the other demands that we turn away from humanity and 
 concentrate our attention on the universe. Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer calls this the Eeligion of the Unknowable ; and 
 though many agnostics consider the name fantastic, they 
 one and all of them, if they resign the religion of hu- 
 
 * "Lay Sermons," pp. 123, 124. 
 
" GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 257 
 
 manity, consider and appeal to this as the only possible 
 alternative. 
 
 Now I have already in this review, not many months 
 since, endeavored to show how completely absurd and 
 childish the first of these two religions, the Religion of 
 Humanity, is. I do not propose, therefore, to discuss it 
 further here, but will beg the reader to consider that for 
 the purpose of the present argument it is brushed aside 
 like rubbish, unworthy of a second examination. Per- 
 haps this request will sound somewhat arbitrary and arro- 
 gant, but I have something to add which will show that 
 it is neither. The particular views which I now aim at 
 discussing are the views represented by Prof. Huxley ; 
 and Prof. Huxley rejects the Religion of Humanity as 
 completely as I do, and with a great deal less ceremony, 
 as the following passage will demonstrate : 
 
 Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the 
 marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a hrute, only 
 more intelligent than the other brutes ; a blind prey to impulses, 
 which, as often as not, lead him to destruction ; a victim to endless 
 illusions which, as often as not, make his mental existence a terror 
 and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle. 
 He attains a certain degree of physical comfort, and develops a 
 more or less workable theory of life, in such favorable situations 
 as the plains of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and, then, for thousands 
 and thousands of years, struggles with varying fortunes, attended 
 by infinite wickedness, bloodshed, and misery, to maintain himself 
 at this point against the greed and the ambition of his fellow-men. He 
 makes a point of killing or otherwise persecuting all those who try 
 to get him to move on ; and when he has moved on a step, foolish- 
 ly confers post-mortem deification on his victims. He exactly re- 
 peats the process with all who want to move a step yet further. 
 And the best men of the best epoch are simply those who make the 
 fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins. ... I know of no 
 study so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity 
 
258 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 as it is set forth in the annals of history ; . . . [and] when the posi- 
 tivists order men to worship humanity — that is to say, to adore the 
 generalized conception of men, as they ever have been, and prob- 
 ably ever will be — I must reply that I could just as soon bow 
 down and worship the generalized conception of a " wilderness 
 of apes." * 
 
 Let us pause here for a moment and look about us, so 
 as to see where we stand. Up to a certain point the ag- 
 nostics have all gone together with absolute unanimity, 
 and I conceive myself to have gone with them. They 
 have all been unanimous in their rejection of theology, 
 and in regarding man and the race of men as a fugitive 
 manifestation of the all-enduring something, which always, 
 everywhere, and in an equal degree, is behind all other 
 phenomena of the universe. They are unanimous also in 
 affirming that, in spite of its fugitive character, life can 
 afford us certain considerations and interests, which will 
 still make duty binding on us, will still give it a meaning. 
 At this point, however, they divide into two bands. Some 
 of them assert that the motive and the meaning of duty 
 is to be found in the history of humanity, regarded as a 
 single drama, with a prolonged and glorious conclusion, 
 complete in itself, satisfying in itself, and imparting, by 
 the sacrament of sympathy, its own meaning and grandeur 
 to the individual life, which would else be petty and con- 
 temptible. This is what some assert, and this is what 
 others deny. "With those who assert it we have now 
 parted company, and are standing alone with those others 
 who deny it — Prof. Huxley among them, as one of their 
 chief spokesmen. 
 
 And now addressing myself to Prof. Huxley in this 
 character, let me explain what I shall try to prove to him. 
 
 * Pages 51, 62. 
 
" GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 259 
 
 If he could believe in God and in the divine authority of 
 Christ, he admits he could account for duty and vindicate 
 a meaning for life ; but he refuses to believe, even though 
 for some reasons he might wish to do so, because he holds 
 that the beliefs in question have no evidence to support 
 them. He complains that an English bishop has called 
 this refusal " cowardly " — " has so far departed from his 
 customary courtesy and self-respect as to speak of ' cow- 
 ardly agnosticism.' " I agree with Prof. Huxley that, on 
 the grounds advanced by the bishop, this epithet " cow- 
 ardly " is entirely undeserved ; but I propose to show him 
 that, if not deserved on them, it is deserved on others, 
 entirely unsuspected by himself. I propose to show that 
 his agnosticism is really cowardly, but cowardly not be- 
 cause it refuses to believe enough, but because, tried by 
 its own standards, it refuses to deny enough. I propose 
 to show that the same method and principle, which is 
 fatal to our faith in the God and the future life of the- 
 ology, is equally fatal to anything which can give exist- 
 ence a meaning, or which can — to have recourse to Prof. 
 Huxley's own phrases — " prevent our ' energies ' from be- 
 ing ' paralyzed,' and ' life's beauty ' from being destroyed." 
 I propose, in other words, to show that his agnosticism is 
 cowardly, not because it does not dare to affirm the au- 
 thority of Christ, but because it does not dare to deny 
 the meaning and the reality of duty. I propose to show 
 that the miserable rags of argument with which he at- 
 tempts to cover the life which he professes to have 
 stripped naked of superstition, are part and parcel of 
 that very superstition itself — that, though they are not 
 the chasuble and the embroidered robe of theology, they 
 are its hair-shirt, and its hair-shirt in tatters — utterly use- 
 less for the purpose to which it is despairingly applied, 
 
260 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and serving only to make the forlorn wearer ridiculous. 
 I propose to show that in retaining this dishonored gar- 
 ment, agnosticism is playing the part of an intellectual 
 Ananias and Sapphira ; and that in professing to give up 
 all that it can not demonstrate, it is keeping back part, 
 and the larger part of the price — not, however, from dis- 
 honesty, but from a dogged and obstinate cowardice, from 
 a terror of facing the ruin which its own principles have 
 made. 
 
 Some, no doubt, will think that this is a rash under- 
 taking, or else that I am merely indulging in the luxury 
 of a little rhetoric. I hope to convince the reader that 
 the undertaking is not rash, and that I mean my expres- 
 sions to be taken in a frigid and literal sense. Let me 
 begin then by repeating one thing, which I have said 
 before. When I say that agnosticism is fatal to our con- 
 ception of duty, I do not mean that it is fatal to those 
 broad rules and obligations which are obviously necessary 
 to any civilized society, which are distinctly defensible 
 on obvious utilitarian grounds, and which, speaking gen- 
 erally, can be enforced by external sanctions. These 
 rules and obligations have existed from the earliest ages 
 of social life, and are sure to exist as long as social life 
 exists. But so far are they from giving life a meaning, 
 that on Prof. Huxley's own showing they have barely 
 made life tolerable. A general obedience to them for 
 thousands and thousands of years has left " the evolution 
 of man, as set forth in the annals of history," the " most 
 unutterably saddening study " that Prof. Huxley knows. 
 From the earliest ages to the present — Prof. Huxley 
 admits this — the nature of man has been such that, despite 
 their laws and their knowledge, most men have made 
 themselves miserable by yielding to " greed " and to " am- 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISMS * 261 
 
 bition," and by practicing " infinite wickedness." They 
 have proscribed their wisest when alive, and accorded 
 them a "foolish" hero-worship when dead. Infinite 
 wickedness, blindness, and idiotic emotion have, then, 
 according to Prof. Huxley's deliberate estimate, marked 
 and marred men from the earliest ages to the present ; 
 and he deliberately says also, that "as men ever have 
 been, they probably ever will be." 
 
 To do our duty, then, evidently implies a struggle. 
 The impulses usually uppermost in us have to be checked, 
 or chastened, by others, and these other impulses have 
 to be generated, by fixing our attention on considerations 
 which lie somehow beneath the surface. If this were not 
 so, men would always have done their duty ; and their 
 history would not have been " unutterably saddening," as 
 Prof. Huxley says it has been. What sort of considera- 
 tions, then, must those we require be ? Before answering 
 this question let us pause for a moment, and, with Prof. 
 Huxley's help, let us make ourselves quite clear what 
 duty is. I have already shown that it differs from a pas- 
 sive obedience to external laws, in being a voluntary and 
 active obedience to a law that is internal ; but its logical 
 aim is analogous — that is to say, the good of the com- 
 munity, ourselves included. Prof. Huxley describes it 
 thus — " to devote one's self to the service of humanity, 
 including intellectual and moral self-culture under that 
 name " ; " to pity and help all men to the best of one's 
 ability " ; " to be strong and patient," " to be ethically 
 pure and noble " ; and to push our devotion to others " to 
 the extremity of self-sacrifice." All these phrases are 
 Prof. Huxley's own. They are plain enough in them- 
 selves ; but, to make what he means yet plainer, he tells 
 us that the best examples of the duty he has been describ- 
 
262 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ing are to be found among Christian martyrs and saints, 
 such as Catherine of Sienna, and above all in the ideal 
 Christ — "the noblest ideal of humanity," he calls it, 
 " which mankind has yet worshiped." Finally, he says 
 that " religion, properly understood, is simply the rever- 
 ence and love for [this] ethical ideal, and the desire to 
 realize that ideal in life which every man ought to feel." 
 That man "ought" to feel this desire, and "ought" to 
 act on it, " is," he says, " surely indisputable," and " ag- 
 nosticism has no more to do with it than it has with music 
 or painting." 
 
 Here, then, we come to something at last which Prof. 
 Huxley, despite all his doubts, declares to be certain — to 
 a conclusion which agnosticism itself, according to his 
 view, admits to be "indisputable." Agnosticism, how- 
 ever, as he has told us already, lays it down as a " funda- 
 mental axiom " that no conclusions are indisputable but 
 such as are " demonstrated or demonstrable." The con- 
 clusion, therefore, that we ought to do our duty, and that 
 we ought to experience what Prof. Huxley calls " relig- 
 ion," is evidently a conclusion which, in his opinion, is 
 demonstrated or demonstrable with the utmost clearness 
 and cogency. Before, however, inquiring how far this is 
 the case, we must state the conclusion in somewhat differ- 
 ent terms, but still in terms which we have Prof. Hux- 
 ley's explicit warrant for using. Duty is a thing which 
 men in general, " as they always have been, and probably 
 ever will be," have lamentably failed to do, and to do 
 which is very difficult, going as it does against some of 
 the strongest and most victorious instincts of our nature. 
 Prof. Huxley's conclusion, then, must be expressed thus : 
 " We ought to do something which most of us do not 
 do, and which we can not do without a severe and 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 263 
 
 painful struggle, often involving the extremity of self- 
 sacrifice." 
 
 And now, such being the case, let ns proceed to this 
 crucial question — What is the meaning of the all-impor- 
 tant word " ought " t It does not mean merely that on 
 utilitarian grounds the conduct in question can be de- 
 fended as tending to certain beneficent results. This 
 conclusion would be indeed barren and useless. It would 
 merely amount to saying that some people would be 
 happier if other people would for their sake consent to 
 be miserable ; or that men would be happier as a race if 
 their instincts and impulses were different from "what 
 they always have been and probably ever will be." "When 
 we say that certain conduct ought to be followed, we do 
 not mean that its ultimate results can be shown to be 
 beneficial to other people, but that they can be exhibited 
 as desirable to the people to whom the conduct is recom- 
 mended — and not only as desirable, but as desirable in a 
 pre-eminent degree — desirable beyond all other results 
 that are immediately beneficial to themselves. Now the 
 positivists, or any other believers in the destinies of hu- 
 manity, absurd as their beliefs may be, still have in their 
 beliefs a means by which, theoretically, duty could be 
 thus recommended. According to them, our sympathy 
 with others is so keen, and the future in store for our de- 
 scendants is so satisfying, that we have only to think of 
 this future and we shall burn with a desire to work for 
 it. But Prof. Huxley, and those who agree with him, 
 utterly reject both of these suppositions. They say, and 
 very rightly, that our sympathies are limited ; and that 
 the blissful future, which it is supposed will appeal to 
 them, is moonshine. The utmost, then, in the way of 
 objective results, that any of us can accomplish by follow- 
 
264 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ing the path of duty, is not only little in itself, but there 
 is no reason for supposing that it will contribute to any- 
 thing great. On the contrary, it will only contribute to 
 something which, as a whole, is si unutterably saddening." 
 
 Let us suppose, then, an individual with two ways of 
 life open to him — the way of ordinary self-indulgence, 
 and the way of pain, effort, and self-sacrifice. The first 
 seems to him obviously the most advantageous ; but he 
 has heard so much fine talk in favor of the second, that 
 he thinks it at least worth considering. He goes, we will 
 suppose, to Prof. Huxley, and asks to have it demon- 
 strated that this way of pain is preferable. Now what 
 answer to that could Prof. Huxley make — he, or any 
 other agnostic who agrees with him ? He has made sev- 
 eral answers. I am going to take them one by one ; and 
 while doing to each of them, as I hope, complete justice, 
 to show that they are not only absolutely and ridiculously 
 impotent to prove what is demanded of them, but they 
 do not even succeed in touching the question at issue. 
 
 One of the answers hardly needs considering, except 
 to show to what straits the thinker must be put who uses 
 it. A man, says Prof. Huxley, ought to choose the way 
 of pain and duty, because it conduces in some small de- 
 gree to the good of others ; and to do good to others 
 ought to be his predominant desire, or, in other words, 
 his religion. But the very fact in human nature that 
 makes the question at issue worth arguing, is the fact 
 that men naturally do not desire the good of others, or, at 
 least, desire it in a very lukewarm way ; and every con- 
 sideration which the positivist school advance to make 
 the good of others attractive and interesting to ourselves 
 Prof. Huxley dismisses with what we may call an up- 
 roarious contempt. If, then, we are not likely to be nerved 
 
44 GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 265 
 
 to our duty by a belief that duty done tends to produce 
 and hasten a change that shall really make the whole 
 human lot beautiful, we are not likely to be nerved to it 
 by the belief that its utmost possible result will be some 
 partial and momentary benefit to a portion of a " wilder- 
 ness of apes." The positivist says to the men of the 
 present day : " Work hard at the foundation of things 
 social ; for on these foundations one day will arise a glori- 
 ous edifice." Prof. Huxley tells them to work equally 
 hard, only he adds that the foundation will never support 
 anything better than pig-sties. His attempt, then, on 
 social grounds, to make duty binding, and give force to 
 the moral imperative, is merely a fragment of Mr. Har- 
 rison's system, divorced from anything that gave it a 
 theoretical meaning. Prof. Huxley has shattered that 
 system against the hard rock of reality, and this is one of 
 the pieces which he has picked up out of the mire. 
 
 The social argument, then, we may therefore put 
 aside, as good perhaps for showing what duty is, but ut- 
 terly useless for creating any desire to do it. Indeed, to 
 render Prof. Huxley justice, it is not the argument on 
 which he mainly relies. The argument, or rather the ar- 
 guments, on which he mainly relies have no direct con- 
 nection with things social at all. They seek to create a 
 religion, or to give a meaning to duty, by dwelling on 
 man's connection, not with his fellow-men, but with the 
 universe, and thus developing in the individual a certain 
 ethical self-reverence, or rather, perhaps, preserving his 
 existing self -reverence from destruction. How any hu- 
 man being who pretends to accurate thinking can con- 
 ceive that these arguments would have the effect desired 
 — that they would either tend in any way to develop self- 
 reverence of any kind, or that this self- reverence, if de- 
 12 
 
266 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 veloped, could connect itself with practical duty — passes 
 my comprehension. Influential and eminent men, how- 
 ever, declare that such is their opinion ; and for that rea- 
 son the arguments are worth analyzing. Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer is here in almost exact accord with Prof. Hux- 
 ley ; we will therefore begin by referring to his way of 
 stating the matter. 
 
 "We are obliged," he says, "to regard every phe- 
 nomenon as a manifestation of some power by which we 
 are acted on; though omnipresence is unthinkable, yet, 
 as experience discloses no bounds to the diffusion of phe- 
 nomena, we are unable to think of limits to the presence 
 of this power; while the criticisms of science teach us 
 that this power is incomprehensible. And this conscious- 
 ness of an incomprehensible power, called omnipresent 
 from inability to assign its limits, is just that conscious- 
 ness on which religion dwells." * Now Prof. Huxley, it 
 will be remembered, gives an account of religion quite 
 different. He says it is a desire to realize a certain ideal 
 in life. His terminology therefore differs from that of 
 Mr. Spencer ; but of the present matter, as the following 
 quotation will show, his view is substantially the same. 
 
 " Let us suppose," he says, " that knowledge is abso- 
 lute, and not relative, and therefore that our conception 
 of matter represents that which really is. Let us suppose 
 further that we do know more of cause and effect than a 
 certain succession ; and I for my part do not see what 
 escape there is from utter materialism and necessarian- 
 ism." And this materialism, were it really what science 
 forces on us, he admits would amply justify the darkest 
 fears that are entertained of it. It would " drown mans 
 
 * " First Principles," p. 99. 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 267 
 
 soul," " impede his freedom," " paralyze his energies," 
 " debase his moral nature," and " destroy the beauty of 
 his life." * But, Prof. Huxley assures us, these dark 
 fears are groundless. There is indeed only one avenue of 
 escape from them ; but that avenue truth open to us. 
 
 u For," he says, " after all, what do we know of this terrible 
 'matter,' except as a name for the unknown and hypothetical cause 
 of states of our own consciousness ? And what do we know of that 
 ' spirit ' over whose extinction by matter a great lamentation is aris- 
 ing, . . . except that it also is a name for an unknown and hypo- 
 thetical cause or condition of states of consciousness? . . . And 
 what is the dire necessity and iron law under which men groan ? 
 Truly, most gratuitously invented bugbears. I suppose if there be 
 an 'iron' law it is that of gravitation; and if there be a physical 
 necessity it is that a stone unsupported must fall to the ground. 
 But what is all we really know and can know about the latter phe- 
 nomena ? Simply that in all human experience stones have fallen 
 to the ground under these conditions ; that we have not the small- 
 est reason for believing that any stone so circumstanced will not 
 fall to the ground ; and that we have, on the contrary, every reason 
 to believe that it will so fall. . . . But when, as commonly happens, 
 we change will into must, we introduce an idea of necessity which 
 . . . has no warranty that I can discover anywhere. . . . Force I 
 know, and Law I know ; but who is this Necessity, save an empty 
 shadow of my own mind's throwing? " 
 
 Let us now compare the statements of these two writ- 
 ers. Each states that the reality of the universe is un- 
 knowable ; that just as surely as matter is always one as- 
 pect of mind, so mind is equally one aspect of matter ; 
 and that if it is true to say that the thoughts of man are 
 material, it is equally true to say that the earth from 
 which man is taken is spiritual. Further, from these 
 statements each writer deduces a similar moral. The only 
 
 * "Lay Sermons," pp. 122, 123, 127. 
 
268 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 difference between them is, that Mr. Spencer puts it pos- 
 itively, and Prof. Huxley negatively. Mr. Spencer says 
 that a consciousness of the unknowable nature of the 
 universe fills the mind with religious emotion. Prof. 
 Huxley says that the same consciousness will preserve 
 from destruction the emotion that already exists in it. 
 We will examine the positive and negative propositions 
 in order, and see what bearing, if any, they have on prac- 
 tical life. 
 
 Mr. Spencer connects his religion with practical life 
 thus : The mystery and the immensity of the All, and 
 our own inseparable connection with it, deepen and sol- 
 emnize our own conception of ourselves. They make us 
 regard ourselves as " elements in that great evolution of 
 which the beginning and the end are beyond our knowl- 
 edge or conception " ; and in especial they make us so 
 regard our " own innermost convictions." 
 
 " It is not for nothing," says Mr. Spencer, " that a man has in 
 him these sympathies with some principles, and repugnance to oth- 
 ers. ... He is a descendant of the past; he is a parent of the fu- 
 ture ; and his thoughts are as children born to him, which he may 
 not carelessly let die. He, like every other man, may properly con- 
 sider himself as one of the myriad agencies through whom works 
 the Unknown Cause and when the Unknown Cause produces in him 
 a certain belief, he is thereby authorized to profess and act with 
 this belief." * 
 
 In all the annals of intellectual self-deception it 
 would be hard to find anything to outdo or even to ap- 
 proach this. What a man does or thinks, what he pro- 
 fesses or acts out, can have no effect whatever, conceiv- 
 able to ourselves, beyond such effects as it produces with- 
 in the limits of this planet ; and hardly any effect, worth 
 
 * "First Principles," p. 123. 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 1 269 
 
 our consideration, beyond such as it produces on himself 
 and a few of his fellow-men. Now, how can any of these 
 effects be connected with the evolution of the universe in 
 such a way as to enable a consciousness of the universe to 
 inform us that one set of effects should be aimed at by us 
 rather than another ? The positivists say that our aim 
 should be the progress of man ; and that, as I have said, 
 forms a standard of duty, though it may not supply a 
 motive. But what has the universe to do with the prog- 
 ress of man ? Does it know anything about it, or care 
 anything about it ? Judging from the language of Mr. 
 Spencer and Prof. Huxley, one would certainly suppose 
 that it did. Surely, in that case, here is anthropomor- 
 phism with a vengeance. " It is not for nothing," says Mr. 
 Spencer, " that the Unknowable has implanted in a man 
 certain impulses." What is this but the old theologic 
 doctrine of design? Can anything be more inconsist- 
 ent with the entire theory of the evolutionist % Mr. 
 Spencer's argument means, if it means anything, that the 
 Unknowable has implanted in us one set of sympathies in 
 a sense in which it has not implanted others ; else the im- 
 pulse to deny one's belief, and not to act on it, which 
 many people experience, would be authorized by the Un- 
 knowable as much as the impulse to profess it, and to act 
 on it. And according to Mr. Spencer's entire theory, ac- 
 cording to Prof. Huxley's entire theory, according to the 
 entire theory of modern science, it is precisely this that is 
 the case. If it is the fact that the Unknowable works 
 through any of our actions, it works through all alike, 
 bad, good, and indifferent, through our lies as well as 
 through our truth-telling, through our injuries to our race 
 as well as through our benefits to it. The attempt to con- 
 nect the well-being of humanity with any general tend- 
 
270 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ency observable in the universe, is in fact, on agnostic 
 principles, as hopeless as an attempt to get, in a balloon, 
 to Jupiter. It is utterly unfit for serious men to talk 
 about ; and its proper place, if anywhere, would be in 
 one of Jules Yerne's story-books. The destinies of man- 
 kind, so far as we have any means of knowing, have as 
 little to do with the course of the Unknowable as a whole, 
 as the destinies of an ant-hill in South Australia have to 
 do with the question of home rule for Ireland. 
 
 Or even supposing the Unknowable to have any feel- 
 ing in the matter, how do we know that its feeling would 
 be in our favor, and that it would not be gratified by the 
 calamities of humanity, rather than by its improvement ? 
 Or here is a question which is more important still. Sup- 
 posing the Unknowable did desire our improvement, but 
 we, as Prof. Huxley says of us, were obstinately bent 
 against being improved, what could the Unknowable do 
 to us for thus thwarting its wishes ? 
 
 And this leads us to another aspect of the matter. If 
 consciousness of the Unknowable does not directly influ- 
 ence action, it may yet be said that the contemplation of 
 the universe as the wonderful garment of this unspeak- 
 able mystery, is calculated to put the mind into a serious 
 and devout condition, which would make it susceptible 
 to the solemn voice of duty. How any devotion so pro- 
 duced could have any connection with duty I confess I 
 am at a loss to see. But I need not dwell on that point, 
 for what I wish to show is this, that contemplation of the 
 Unknowable, from the agnostic's point of view, is not 
 calculated to produce any sense of devoutness at all. De- 
 voutness is made up of three things, fear, love, and won- 
 der ; but were the agnostic's thoughts really controlled 
 by his principles (which they are not) not one of these 
 
" CO WABDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 271 
 
 emotions conld the Unknowable possibly excite in him. 
 It need hardly be said that he has no excuse for loving it, 
 for his own first principles forbid him to say that it is 
 lovable, or that it possesses any character, least of all any 
 anthropomorphic character. But perhaps it is calculated 
 to excite fear or awe in him. This idea is more plausible 
 than the other. The universe as compared with man is a 
 revelation of forces that are infinite, and it may be said 
 that surely these have something awful and impressive in 
 them. There is, however, another side to the question. 
 This universe represents not only infinite forces, but it 
 represents also infinite impotence. So long as we con- 
 form ourselves to certain ordinary rules we may behave 
 as we like for anything it can do to us. We may look at 
 it with eyes of adoration, or make faces at it, and blas- 
 pheme it, but for all its power it can not move a finger to 
 touch us. Why, then, should a man be in awe of this 
 lubberly All, whose blindness and impotence are at least 
 as remarkable as its power, and from which man is as ab- 
 solutely safe as a mouse in a hole is from a lion % But 
 there still remains the emotion of wonder to be consid- 
 ered. Is not the universe calculated to excite our wonder 1 
 From the agnostic point of view we must certainly say 
 ]STo. The further science reveals to us the constitution of 
 things the feeling borne in on us more and more strongly 
 is this, that it is not wonderful that things happen as they 
 do, but that it would be wonderful if they happened oth- 
 erwise : while as for the Unknown Cause that is behind 
 what science reveals to us, we can not wonder at that, for 
 we know nothing at all about it, and, if there is any won- 
 der involved in the matter at all, it is nothing but wonder 
 at our own ignorance. 
 
 So much, then, for our mere emotions toward the 
 
272 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Unknowable. There still remains, however, one way 
 more in which it is alleged that our consciousness of it 
 can be definitely connected with duty; and this is the 
 way which our agnostic philosophers most commonly have 
 in view, and to which they allude most frequently. I 
 allude to the search after scientific truth and the procla- 
 mation of it, regardless of consequences. Whenever the 
 agnostics are pressed as to the consequences of their prin- 
 ciples, it is on this conception of duty that they invariably 
 fall back. Mr. Herbert Spencer, on his own behalf, ex- 
 presses the position thus : 
 
 The highest truth he sees will the wise man fearlessly utter, 
 knowing that, let what may come of it, he is thus placing his right 
 part in the world, knowing that if he can effect the change [in be- 
 lief] he aims at, well ; if not, well also ; though not so well.* 
 
 After what has been said already it will not be neces- 
 sary to dwell long on this astonishing proposition. A 
 short examination will suffice to show its emptiness. 
 That a certain amount of truth in social intercourse is 
 necessary for the continuance of society, and that a large 
 number of scientific truths are useful in enabling us to 
 add to our material comforts is, as Prof. Huxley would 
 say "surely indisputable." And truth thus understood 
 it is " surely indisputable " that we should cultivate. 
 The reason is obvious. Such truth has certain social con- 
 sequences, certain things that we all desire come of it ; 
 but the highest truth which Mr. Spencer speaks of stands, 
 according to him, on a wholly different basis, and we are 
 to cultivate it, not because of its consequences, but in de- 
 fiance of them. And what are its consequences, so far as 
 we can see ? Prof. Huxley's answer is this : " I have 
 
 * "First Principles," p. 123. 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 273 
 
 had, and have, the firmest conviction that . . . the verace 
 via, the straight road, has led nowhere else but into the 
 dark depths of a wild and tangled forest." Now if this 
 be the case, what possible justification can there be for 
 following this verace via f In what sense is the man 
 who follows it playing " his right part in the world " ? 
 And when Mr. Spencer says, with regard to his conduct, 
 " it is well," with whom is it well, or in what sense is it 
 well ? We can use such language with any warrant or 
 with any meaning only on the supposition that the uni- 
 verse, or the Unknowable as manifested through the uni- 
 verse, is concerned with human happiness in some special 
 way, in which it is not concerned with human misery, and 
 that thus our knowledge of it must somehow make men 
 happier, even though it leads them into a wild and tangled 
 forest. It is certain that our devotion to truth will not 
 benefit the universe ; the only question is, will knowledge of 
 the universe, beyond a certain point, benefit us \ But the 
 supposition just mentioned is merely theism in disguise. 
 It imputes to the Unknowable design, purpose, and affec- 
 tion. In every way it is contrary to the first principles of 
 agnosticism. Could we admit it, then devotion to truth 
 might have all the meaning that Mr. Spencer claims for 
 it : but if this supposition is denied, as all agnostics deny 
 it, this devotion to truth, seemingly so noble and so un- 
 assailable, sinks to a superstition more abject, more mean- 
 ingless, and more ridiculous than that of any African sav- 
 age, groveling and mumbling before his fetich. 
 
 We have now passed under review the main positive 
 arguments by which our agnostics, while dismissing the 
 existence of God as a question of lunar politics, endeavor 
 to exhibit the reality of religion, and of duty, as a thing 
 that is " surely indisputable." We will now pass on to 
 
274: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 their negative arguments. While by positive arguments 
 they endeavor to prove that duty and religion are realities, 
 by their negative arguments they endeavor to prove that 
 duty and religion are not impossibilities. We have seen 
 how absolutely worthless to their cause are the former ; 
 but if the former are worthless, the latter are positively 
 fatal. 
 
 What they are the reader has already seen. I have 
 taken the statement of them from Prof. Huxley, but Mr. 
 Spencer uses language almost precisely similar. These 
 arguments start with two admissions. Were all our ac- 
 tions linked one to another by mechanical necessity, it is 
 admitted that responsibility and duty would be no longer 
 conceivable. Our "energies," as Prof. Huxley admits, 
 would be "paralyzed" by "utter necessarianism." Fur- 
 ther, did our conception of matter represent a reality, 
 were matter low and gross, as we are accustomed to think 
 of it, then man, as the product of matter, would be low 
 and gross also, and heroism and duty would be really 
 successfully degraded, by being reduced to questions of 
 carbon and ammonia. But from all of these difficulties 
 Prof. Huxley professes to extricate us. Let us look 
 back at the arguments by which he considers that he has 
 done so. 
 
 We will begin with his method of liberating us from 
 the " iron " law of necessity, and thus giving us back our 
 freedom and moral character. He performs this feat, or 
 rather, he thinks he has performed it, by drawing a dis- 
 tinction between what will happen and what must happen. 
 On this distinction his entire position is based. Now in 
 every argument used by any sensible man there is proba- 
 bly some meaning. Let us try fairly to see what is the 
 meaning in this. I take it that the idea at the bottom of 
 
« CO WAEDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 275 
 
 Prof. Huxley's mind is as follows : Though all our scien- 
 tific reasoning presupposes the uniformity of the universe, 
 we are unable to assert of the reality behind the universe, 
 that it might not manifest itself in ways by which all 
 present science would be baffled. But what has an idea 
 like this to do with any practical question ? So far as 
 man, and man's will, are concerned, we have to do only 
 with the universe as we know it ; and the only knowledge 
 we have of it, worth calling knowledge, involves, as Prof. 
 Huxley is constantly telling us, "the great act of faith," 
 which leads us to take what has been as a certain index 
 of what will be. Now, with regard to this universe, Prof. 
 Huxley tells us that the progress of science has always 
 meant, and " means now more than ever," " the extension 
 of the province of . . . causation, and . . . the banish- 
 ment of spontaneity." * And this applies, as he express- 
 ly says, to human thought and action as much as to the 
 flowering of a plant. Just as there can be no voluntary 
 action without volition, so there can be no volition with- 
 out some preceding cause. Accordingly, if a man's con- 
 dition at any given moment were completely known, his 
 actions could be predicted with as much" or with as little 
 certainty as the fall of a stone could be predicted if re- 
 leased from the hand that held it. Now Prof. Huxley 
 tells us that, with regard to certainty, we are justified in 
 saying that the stone will fall ; and we should, therefore, 
 be justified in saying similarly of the man, that he will 
 act in such and such a manner. Whether theoretically 
 we are absolutely certain is no matter. We are absolute- 
 ly certain for all practical purposes, and the question of 
 human freedom is nothing if not practical. What then 
 
 *" Lay Sermons," p. 123. 
 
276 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 is gained — is anything gained — is the case in any way 
 altered — by telling ourselves that, though there is cer- 
 tainty in the case, there is no necessity ? Suppose T held 
 a loaded pistol to Prof. Huxley's ear, and offered to pull 
 the trigger, should I reconcile him to the operation by 
 telling him that, though it certainly would kill him, there 
 was not the least necessity that it should do so % And 
 with regard to volition and action, as the result of pre- 
 ceding causes, is not the case precisely similar ? Let Prof. 
 Huxley turn to all the past actions of humanity. Can he 
 point to any smallest movement of any single human 
 being, which has not been the product of causes, which 
 in their turn have been the product of other causes ? Or 
 can he point to any causes which, under given conditions, 
 could have produced any effects other than those they 
 have produced, unless he uses the word could in the fool- 
 ish and fantastic sense which would enable him to say 
 that unsupported stones could possibly fly upward ? For 
 all practical purposes the distinction between must and 
 will is neither more nor less than a feeble and childish 
 sophism. Theoretically no doubt it will bear this mean- 
 ing — that the Unknowable might have so made man, that 
 at any given moment he could be a different being : but 
 it does nothing to break the force of what all science 
 teaches us — that man, formed as he is, can not act other- 
 wise than as he does. The universe may have no ne- 
 cessity at the back of it / but its presence and its past 
 alike are a necessity at the back of us; and it is not 
 necessity, but it is doubt of necessity, that is really " the 
 shadow of our own mind's throwing." 
 
 And now let us face Prof. Huxley's other argument, 
 which is to save life from degradation by taking away the 
 reproach from matter. If it is true, he tells us, to say that 
 
" GO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM:' 1 277 
 
 everything, mind included, is matter, it is equally true to 
 say that everything, matter included, is mind ; and thus, 
 he argues, the dignity we all attribute to mind, at once is 
 seen to diffuse itself throughout the entire universe. Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer puts the same view thus : 
 
 Such an attitude of mind [contempt for matter and dread of ma- 
 terialism] is significant not so much of a reverence for the Unknown 
 Cause, as of an irreverence for those familiar forms in which the 
 Unknown Cause is manifested to us.* . . . But whoever remembers 
 that the forms of existence of which the uncultivated speak with so 
 much scorn . . . are found to he the more marvelous the more they 
 are investigated, and are also to be found to be in their natures ab- 
 solutely incomprehensible . . . will see that the course proposed [a 
 reduction of all things to terms of matter] does not imply a degra- 
 dation of the so-called higher, but an elevation of the so-called 
 lower. 
 
 The answer to this argument, so far as it touches any 
 ethical or religious question, is at once obvious and con- 
 clusive. The one duty of ethics and of religion is to 
 draw a distinction between two states of emotion and two 
 courses of action — to elevate the one and to degrade the 
 other. But the argument we are now considering, though 
 undoubtedly true in itself, has no bearing on this distinc- 
 tion whatever. It is invoked to show that religion and 
 duty remain spiritual in spite of all materialism ; but it 
 ends, with unfortunate impartiality, in showing the same 
 thing of vice and of cynical worldliness. If the life of 
 Christ is elevated by being seen in this light, so also is the 
 life of Casanova ; and it is as impossible in this way to 
 make the one higher than the other as it is to make one 
 man higher than another by taking them both up in a 
 balloon. 
 
 * " First Principles," p. 656. 
 
278 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 I have now gone through the whole case for duty and 
 for religion, as stated by the agnostic school, and have 
 shown that, as thus stated, there is no case at all. I have 
 shown their arguments to be so shallow, so irrelevant, 
 and so contradictory, that they never could have imposed 
 themselves on the men who condescend to use them, if 
 these men, upon utterly alien grounds, had not pledged 
 themselves to the conclusion which they invoke the argu- 
 ments to support. Something else, however, still remains 
 to be done. Having seen how agnosticism fails to give a 
 basis to either religion or duty, I will point out to the 
 reader how it actively and mercilessly destroys them. 
 Religion and duty, as has been constantly made evident in 
 the course of the foregoing discussion, are, in the opinion 
 of the agnostics, inseparably connected. Duty is a course 
 of conduct which is more than conformity to human law ; 
 religion consists of the emotional reasons for pursuing that 
 conduct. Now these reasons, on the showing of the ag- 
 nostics themselves, are reasons that do not lie on the sur- 
 face of the mind. They have to be sought out in moods 
 of devoutness and abstraction, and the more we dwell on 
 them, the stronger they are supposed to become. They 
 lie above and beyond the ordinary things of life; but 
 after communing with them, it is supposed that we shall 
 descend to these things with our purposes sharpened and 
 intensified. It is easy to see, however, if we divest our- 
 selves of all prejudice, and really conceive ourselves to be 
 convinced of nothing which is not demonstrable by the 
 methods of agnostic science, that the more we dwell on 
 the agnostic doctrine of the universe, the less and not the 
 more shall duty seem to be binding on us. 
 
 I have said that agnosticism can supply us with no 
 religion. Perhaps I was wrong in saying so, but if we 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 279 
 
 will but invert the supposed tendency of religion, it can 
 and it will supply us with a religion indeed. It will sup- 
 ply us with a religion which, if we describe it in theo- 
 logical language, we may with literal accuracy describe as 
 the religion of the devil — of the devil, the spirit which 
 denies. Instead of telling us of duty, that it has a mean- 
 ing which does not lie on the surface, such meaning as 
 may lie on the surface it will utterly take away. It will 
 indeed tell us that the soul which sins shall die ; but it 
 will tell us in the same breath that the soul which does 
 not sin shall die the same death. Instead of telling us 
 that we are responsible for our actions, it will tell us that 
 if anything is responsible for them it is the blind and un- 
 fathomable universe ; and if we are asked to repent of 
 any shameful sins we have committed, it will tell us we 
 might as well be repentant about the structure of the so- 
 lar system. These meditations, these communings with 
 scientific truth, will be the exact inverse of the religious 
 meditations of the Christian. Every man, no doubt, has 
 two voices — the voice of self-indulgence or indifference, 
 and the voice of effort and duty ; but whereas the religion 
 of the Christian enabled him to silence the one, the re- 
 ligion of the agnostic will forever silence the other. I 
 say forever, but I probably ought to correct myself. 
 Could the voice be silenced forever, then there might be 
 peace in the sense in which Roman conquerors gave the 
 name of peace to solitude. But it is more likely that the 
 voice will still continue, together with the longing ex- 
 pressed by it, only to feel the pains of being again and 
 again silenced, or sent back to the soul saying bitterly, I 
 am a lie. 
 
 Such, then, is really the result of agnosticism on life, 
 and the result is so obvious to any one who knows how to 
 
280 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 reason, that it could be hidden from nobody, except by 
 one thing, and that is the cowardice characteristic of all 
 our contemporary agnostics. They dare not face what 
 they have done. They dare not look fixedly at the body 
 of the life which they have pierced. 
 
 And now comes the final question to which all that I 
 have thus far urged has been leading. What does theo- 
 logic religion answer to the principles and to the doc- 
 trines of agnosticism? In contemporary discussion the 
 answer is constantly obscured, but it is of the utmost im- 
 portance that it should be given clearly. It says this : If 
 we start from and are faithful to the agnostic's funda- 
 mental principles, that nothing is to be regarded as cer- 
 tain which is not either demonstrated or demonstrable, 
 then the denial of God is the only possible creed for us. 
 To the methods of science, nothing in this universe gives 
 any hint of either a God or a purpose. Duty ; and holi- 
 ness, aspiration and love of truth, are " merely shadows of 
 our own mind's throwing," but shadows which, instead 
 of making the reality brighter, only serve to make it more 
 ghastly and hideous. Humanity is a bubble ; the human 
 being is a puppet cursed with the intermittent illusion 
 that he is something more, and roused from this illusion 
 with a pang every time it flatters him. Now, from this 
 condition of things is there no escape? Theologic re- 
 ligion answers, There is one, and one only, and this is the 
 repudiation of the principle on which all agnosticism 
 rests. 
 
 Let us see what this repudiation amounts to, and we 
 shall then realize what, in the present day, is the intel- 
 lectual basis which theologic religion claims. Theologic 
 religion does not say that within limits the agnostic prin- 
 ciple is not perfectly valid and has not led to the discov- 
 
" CO WARDL Y A GNOSTICISM: 1 281 
 
 ery of a vast body of truth. But what it does say is this : 
 That the truths which are thus discovered are not the 
 only truths which are certainly and surely discoverable. 
 The fundamental principle of agnosticism is that nothing 
 is certainly true but such truths as are demonstrated or 
 demonstrable. The fundamental principle of theologic 
 religion is that there are other truths of which we can be 
 equally or even more certain, and that these are the only 
 truths that give life a meaning and redeem us from the 
 body of death. Agnosticism says nothing is certain 
 which can not be proved by science. Theologic religion 
 says, nothing which is important can be. Agnosticism 
 draws a line round its own province of knowledge, and 
 beyond that it declares is the unknown void which thought 
 can not enter, and in which belief can not support itself. 
 Where Agnosticism pauses, there religion begins. On 
 what seems to science to be un sustaining air, it lays its 
 foundations — it builds up its fabric of certainties. Sci- 
 ence regards them as dreams, as an " unsubstantial pag- 
 eant " ; and yet even to science religion can give some 
 account of them. Prof. Huxley says, as we have seen, 
 that " from the nature of ratiocination," it is obvious that 
 it must start "from axioms which can not be demon- 
 strated by ratiocination " ; and that in science it must 
 start with " one great act of faith "—faith in the uniform- 
 ity of nature. Eeligion replies to science : " And I, too, 
 start with a faith in one thing. I start with a faith which 
 you, too, profess to hold— faith in the meaning of duty 
 and the infinite importance of life ; and out of that faith 
 my whole fabric of certainties, one after the other, is 
 reared by the hands of reason. Do you ask for proof % 
 Do you ask for verification % I can give you one only, 
 which you may take or leave, as you choose. Deny the 
 
282 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 certainties which I declare to be certain — deny the exist- 
 ence of God, deny man's freedom and immortality, and 
 by no other conceivable hypothesis can yon vindicate for 
 man's life any possible meaning, or save it from the deg- 
 radation at which you profess to feel so aghast." " Is 
 there no other way," I can conceive science asking, " no 
 other way by which the dignity of life may be vindicated 
 except this — the abandonment of my one fundamental 
 principle ? Must I put my lips, in shame and humilia- 
 tion, to the cup of faith I have so contemptuously cast 
 away from me ? May not this cup pass from me ? Is 
 there salvation in no other ? " And to this question, 
 without passion or preference, the voice of reason and 
 logic pitilessly answers " No." 
 
 Here is the dilemma which men, sooner or later, will 
 see before them, in all its crudeness and nakedness, 
 cleared from the rags with which the cowardice of con- 
 temporary agnosticism has obscured it ; and they will 
 then have to choose one alternative or the other. What 
 their choice will be I do not venture to prophesy ; but I 
 will venture to call them happy if their choice prove to 
 be this.: To admit frankly that their present canon of 
 certainity, true so far as it goes, is only the pettiest part 
 of truth, and that the deepest certainties are those which, 
 if tried by this canon, are illusions. To make this choice 
 a struggle would be required with pride, and with what 
 has long passed for enlightenment ; and yet, when it is 
 realized what depends on the struggle, there are some at 
 least who will think that it must end successfully. The 
 only way by which, in the face of science, we can ever 
 logically arrive at a faith in life, is by the commission of 
 what many at present will describe as an intellectual sui- 
 cide. I do not for a moment admit that such an expres- 
 
" GO WARDL T A GNOSTICISM. " 283 
 
 sion is justifiable, but, if I may use it provisionally, and 
 because it points to the temper at present prevalent, I 
 shall be simply pronouncing the judgment of frigid 
 reason in saying that it is only through the grave and 
 gate of death that the spirit of man can pass to its 
 resurrection. 
 
XI. 
 
 THE NEW REFORMATION. 
 
 A DIALOGUE. 
 By MRS. HUMPHRY WARD. 
 
 In a sitting-room belonging to a comer house in one 
 of the streets running from the Strand toward the Em- 
 bankment, a young man sat reading on a recent winter 
 afternoon. Behind him was an old-fashioned semicircular 
 window, through which the broad gray line of the river, 
 the shipping on its stream, and the dark masses of build- 
 ing on the opposite shore could be as plainly seen as the 
 fading light permitted. But a foggy evening was steal- 
 ing rapidly on, and presently the young man dropped his 
 book, and betook himself to his pipe, supplemented by a 
 dreamy study of the fire. A sound was heard in the lit- 
 tle hall down-stairs ; the reader started up, went to the 
 door, and listened ; but all was quiet again, and he re- 
 turned to his chair. As he moved he showed a figure, 
 tall, and possessed of a certain slouching, broad-shouldered 
 power. The hair was noticeably black, and curled closely 
 over the head. The features were strongly cut, dashed 
 in, a little by accident, as it seemed, so that only the 
 mouth had fallen finely into drawing. But through the 
 defects of the face, as through the student's stoop of the 
 powerful frame, there breathed an attractive and vigorous 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 285 
 
 individuality. You saw a man all alive, marked already 
 by the intensity with which he had plied his trade, and 
 curiously combining in his outward aspect the suggestions 
 of a patient tenacity with those of a quick and irritable 
 susceptibility. 
 
 " I must wait for him, I suppose," he said to himself, 
 as he resumed his seat. "I wish it were over. Come 
 here, Tony, and support me." 
 
 The Aberdeen terrier on the rug got up slowly, sleep- 
 ily blinked at his master, and climbed into the chair be- 
 side him, where he had hardly established himself, after a 
 long process of leisurely fidgeting, when the hall-door bell 
 rang in good earnest, and Tony, hastily driven dowo, was 
 left to meditate on the caprices of power. 
 
 His master threw open the door. 
 
 " Well, how are you, my dear old fellow ? " said the 
 new-comer. " I thought I never should get here. The 
 lunch at Lambeth was interminable, and one saw so many 
 people there whom one knew a little, and was glad to 
 talk to, that even after lunch it was impossible to cat it 
 short. But how are you ? How glad I am to see you ! " 
 
 And the speaker advanced into the room, still holding 
 the other's hand affectionately. He was a slightly-built 
 man, in a clerical coat, with a long, narrow face and pierc- 
 ing eyes. The whole aspect was singularly refined ; all 
 the lines were thin and prematurely worn ; but the ex- 
 pression was sparkling and full of charm, and the strong 
 priestly element in dress and manner clearly implied no 
 lack of pliancy of mind, of sensitiveness and elasticity of 
 feeling. 
 
 " Sit down there," said the owner of the rooms, put- 
 ting the new-comer into the chair he himself had just 
 vacated. " Tony — you impudence ! — out of that ! Really, 
 
286 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 that dog and I Lave been living so long by ourselves that 
 his manners, at any rate, are past praying for — and I 
 should be sorry to answer for my own." 
 
 " Well, and where have you been all this time, Merri- 
 man ? " said the man in the chair, looking up at his com- 
 panion with an expression in which a very strong and 
 evident pleasure seemed to be crossed by something else. 
 " Two years, isn't it, since we parted at Oxford, and since 
 I went off to my first curacy ? And not a line from you 
 since — not one — not even an address on a postcard, till I 
 heard from you that you would be in town to-day. Do 
 you call that decent behavior, sir, to an old friend ? " 
 
 " It is explainable, I think," said the other awkwardly 
 and paused. "But, however — So you, Konalds, are 
 still at Mickledown, and it is your vicar Eaynham who 
 has been consecrated to-day to this new South African 
 see % " 
 
 " Yes," said Eonalds, with a sigh. " Yes, it is a heavy 
 loss to us all. If ever there was a true and effective 
 Churchman, it is Eaynham. It is hard to spare a man 
 like that from the work here. However, he is absolutely 
 guileless and self-sacrificing, and I like to believe that he 
 knows best. But yourself, Merriman ; you seem to for- 
 get that it is you who are the riddle and the mystery ! 
 It is nearly two years ago, isn't it, since you wrote to tell 
 me you had postponed your ordination for the purpose of 
 spending some time in Germany, and going through 
 further theological training? But as to your whereabout 
 in Germany I have been quite in the dark. Explain, old 
 fellow." 
 
 And the speaker put up his hand and touched his 
 companion's arm. Look and action were equally winning, 
 and expressed the native inborn lovableness of the man. 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 287 
 
 Merriraan named a small but famous German uni- 
 versity. 
 
 " I have been eighteen months there," he added, 
 briefly, his quick eye taking note of the shade which had 
 fallen across his companion's expression. " I have had a 
 splendid time." 
 
 " And have come back — what for % " 
 
 " To eat dinners and go to the Bar." 
 
 Ronalds started. 
 
 " So the old dream is given up ? " he said, slowly. 
 " How we used to cherish it together ! When did you 
 make up your mind to relinquish the Church % " 
 
 " Some eight or nine months ago." 
 
 The speaker paused a moment, then went on : 
 
 " That is why I did not write to you, Ronalds. At 
 first I was too undecided, too overwhelmed by new ideas ; 
 and then, afterward, I knew you would be distressed, so 
 I let it alone till we should meet." 
 
 Ronalds lay back in his chair, sheltering his eyes from 
 the blaze of the fire with one hand. He did not speak 
 for a minute or two ; then he said, in a somewhat con- 
 strained voice : 
 
 " Is G one of their — what shall I call it ? — liberal 
 
 — advanced — universities ? " 
 
 " Not particularly. The mass of students in the 
 theological faculty there are on the road to being Luther- 
 an pastors of a highly orthodox kind, and find plenty of 
 professors to suit them. I was attracted by the reputa- 
 tion of a group of men, whose books are widely read, in- 
 deed, but whose lecture-rooms are very scantily filled. 
 It seemed to me that in their teaching I should find that 
 historical temper which I was above all in search of. You 
 remember " — and the speaker threw back his head with 
 
288 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 a smile which pleasantly illumined the massive, irregular 
 features — " how you used to laugh at me for a Teutophile 
 — how that history prize of mine on Teutonic Arianism 
 plunged me into quagmires of German you used to make 
 merry over, and wherein, according to you, I had dropped 
 forever all chances of a decent English style ! Well, it 
 was nothing but that experience of German methods, 
 working together with all the religious ideas of which my 
 mind and yours had been full for so long, that made me 
 put off orders and go abroad. I think," he added slowly, 
 "I was athirst to see what Germans, like those whose 
 work on the fifth and sixth centuries had struck me with 
 admiration, could make of the first and second centuries. 
 I was full of problems and questionings. The historical 
 work which I had begun so casually seemed to have 
 roused a host of new forces and powers. I was unhappy. 
 The old and the new wouldn't blend — wouldn't fuse. I 
 was especially worried with that problem of historical 
 translation^ if I may call it so, which had risen up before 
 me like a ghost out of all those interminable German 
 books about the Goths, in which I had buried myself. 
 My ghost walked. It touched matters I tried in vain to 
 keep sacred from it. Finally, it drove me out of Eng- 
 land." 
 
 A new flame of fire had wakened in the black, half- 
 shut eyes. With such a growth of animation might 
 Richard Rothe have described the tumults of heart and 
 mind which drove him from Germany southward into 
 the land of art, from Wiirtemberg to Rome, from the 
 narrow thought-world of Lutheran Pietism into the wide 
 horizons of a humaner faith. 
 
 " Historical translation h " said the other, looking up. 
 " What do you mean by that % " 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 289 
 
 " Simply the transmutation of past witness into the 
 language of the present. That was the point, the prob- 
 lem, which seized me from the beginning. Here, for 
 instance, in my work among the Goths, I had before me 
 a mass of original material — chronicles, ecclesiastical biog- 
 raphies, acts of councils, lives of saints, papal letters, re- 
 ligious polemics, and so forth. And I had also before 
 me two different kinds of modern treatment of it, an older 
 and a newer ; the older represented by books written — 
 what shall we say ? — broadly speaking, before 1840 ; the 
 newer by a series of works produced, of course, in the 
 light of .Niebuhr and Kanke, and differing altogether in 
 tone from the earlier series. "What was this difference in 
 tone ? Of course, we all know — in spite of Gibbon — that 
 history has been reborn since the Eevolution. Yes ; but 
 why ? how ? Pat the development into words. "Well, it 
 seemed to me like nothing in the world so much as the 
 difference between good and bad translation. The older 
 books had had certain statements and products of the past 
 to render into the language of the present. And they 
 had rendered them inadequately with that vagueness and 
 generality and convention which belong to bad transla- 
 tion. And the result was either merely flat and perfunc- 
 tory, something totally without the breath of life and 
 reality, or else the ideas and speech of the past were 
 hidden away under what was in truth a disguise — often a 
 magnificent disguise — woven out of the ideas and speech 
 of the present. But the books since Niebuhr, since 
 Ranke, since Mommsen ! There you found a difference. 
 At last you found out that these men and women, these 
 kings and bishops and saints, these chroniclers and officials, 
 were flesh and blood ; that they had ideas, passions, poli- 
 tics ; that they lived, as we do, under governing prepos- 
 13 
 
290 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 sessions ; that they had theories of life and the universe ; 
 and till you understood these and could throw yourself 
 back into them, you had no chance of understanding the 
 men or their doings. The past woke up, lived and moved, 
 and what it said came to you with a new accent, the ac- 
 cent of truth. And all this was brought about by noth- 
 ing in the world fundamentally but improved translation, 
 by the use of that same faculty, half -scientific, half -imagi- 
 native, which, in the rendering of a foreign language, 
 enables a man to get into the very heart and mind of his 
 author, to speak with his tones and feel with his feeling." 
 
 The speaker paused a moment as though to rein him- 
 self up. Ronalds looked at him, smiling at the strenu- 
 ous attitude — hands on sides, head thrown back — which 
 seemed to recall many by-gone moments to the spectator. 
 
 " If you mean by all this," he said, " that the modern 
 historian throws less of himself into his work, shows more 
 real detachment of mind than his predecessors, I can 
 bring half a dozen instances against you. When is Car- 
 lyle anybody but Carlyle, fitting the whole of history to 
 the clothes- and force-philosophy ? " 
 
 " Oh, the subjective element, of course, is inevitable 
 to some degree or other. But, in truth, paradox as it 
 may sound, it is just this heightened individuality in the 
 modern historian which makes him in many ways a better 
 interpreter of the past. He is more sympathetic, more 
 eager, more curious, more romantic, if you will ; and, at 
 the same time, the scientific temper, which is the twin 
 sister of the romantic — and both the peculiar children of 
 to-day — is always there to guide his eagerness, to instruct 
 his curiosity, to discipline his sympathy. He understands 
 the past better, because he carries more of the present 
 into it than those who went before, because the culture 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 291 
 
 of this present provides him with sharper and more in- 
 genious tools wherewith to reconstruct the building of 
 the past, and because, by virtue of a trained and developed 
 imagination, he is able nowadays to live in the life, physi- 
 cal and moral, of the by-gone streets and temples, the long 
 dead men and women, brought to light again by his 
 knowledge and his skill, to a degree and in a manner 
 unknown to any century but ours." 
 
 " "Well said ! " exclaimed Ronalds, smiling again. 
 " Modern history has earned its paean — far be it from me 
 to grudge it." 
 
 " Ah ! I run on," said the other, penitently, the arms 
 falling and the attitude relaxing. " But to return to my- 
 self, if you really want the explanation — " 
 
 And he looked inquiringly at his friend. 
 
 " I want it," said Ronalds in a low voice. " But I 
 dread it." 
 
 Merriman paused a moment, his keen black eyes rest- 
 ing on his friend. Then he said gently : 
 
 " I will say no more if it would be painful to you. 
 And yet I should like to explain myself. You influenced 
 me a great deal at Oxford. I doubt if I should ever have 
 thought of taking orders but for you. Constantly in 
 Germany my mind turned to you with a sense of responsi- 
 bility. I could not write, but I always looked forward 
 to talking it out." 
 
 " Go on, go on," said Ronalds, looking up at him. 
 " I wish to understand — if I can." 
 
 " Well, then, you remember that, during the time I 
 was hunting up Goths, I had to break off divinity lect- 
 ures. But the day after the prize was sent in I re- 
 member gathering together the old books again, and I 
 took up specially Edersheim's ' Jesus the Messiah,' which 
 
292 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Haigh of Trinity had lent me some weeks before. I read 
 it for hours, and at the end I laid it down with an inward 
 judgment, the strength of which I shall never forget. 
 ' Learning up to a certain point, feeling up to a certain 
 point, but all through bad history — had translation!'* 
 Six months before, I should have been incapable of any 
 such verdict. But my Germans, with their vile type and 
 their abominable style, had taught me a good deal in be- 
 tween. If Edersheim's ways of using documents and con- 
 ceiving history were right, then theirs were all wrong. 
 But I knew them, on the contrary, to be abundantly right 
 — at any rate, within their own sphere. Must the Chris- 
 tian documents be treated differently — could they be 
 treated differently, in principle — from the documents of 
 the declining empire, or of any other historical period ? 
 That evening was a kind of crisis. I was never at peace 
 afterward. I remember turning to books on Inspiration 
 and on the Canon, and resuming attendance on old 
 S 's lectures on Apologetics, which had been inter- 
 rupted for me by reading for the Essay. Many times I 
 
 recollect going to see X at Christchurch. He saw I 
 
 was in difficulties, and talked to me a great deal and very 
 kindly about the impossibility of mere reason supplying 
 a solution for any of the prevalent doubts as to Christi- 
 anity. One must wish to believe, or belief was impossi- 
 ble. He quoted MansePs words to me : ' Affection is part 
 of insight ; it is wanted for gaining due acquaintance with 
 the facts of the case.' All this fitted in very well with 
 the Neo-Kantian ideas I believed myself to have adopted 
 during my reading for Greats ; and when he sent me to 
 Mozley, and Newman's ' Grammar of Assent,' I followed 
 his advice gladly enough. But the only result was that 
 I found my whole conception of truth fissured and broken 
 
TEE NEW REFORMATION. 293 
 
 up. It came to this, that there were two truths — not only 
 a truth of matter and a truth of spirit, but two truths of 
 history, two truths of literary criticism, to which answered 
 corresponding moods of mind on the part of the Christian. 
 It was imperatively right to endeavor to disentagle mira- 
 cle from history, the marvelous from the real, in a docu- 
 ment of the fourth, or third, or second century ; to see 
 delusions in the Montanist visions, the growth of myth 
 in Apocryphal gospels, or the Acts of Pilate, a natural 
 credulity in Justin's demonology, careless reporting in 
 the ascription by Papias to Jesus of a gross millenarian 
 prophecy, and so on. But the contents of the New 
 Testament, however marvelous, and however apparently 
 akin to what surrounds them on either side, were to be 
 treated from a totally different point of view. In the 
 one case there must be a desire on the part of the his- 
 torian to discover the historical under the miraculous, or 
 he would be failing in his duty as a sane and competent 
 observer; in the other case there must be a desire, a 
 strong i affection,' on the part of the theologian, toward 
 proving the miraculous to be historical, or he would be 
 failing in his duty as a Christian. Yet in both cases — 
 the reflection was inevitable — the evidence was historical 
 and literary, and the witnesses were human! — At this 
 point I came across the first volume of Baur's i Church 
 History.' Now, Baur's main theories, you will remem- 
 ber, had been described to us in one or two of S 's 
 
 lectures. He had been held up to us as the head and 
 front of the German system-making; the extravagance 
 of his Simon Magus theory, the arbitrariness of his per- 
 petual antitheses between i Petrinismus ' and 'Paulinis- 
 mus,' ' Particularismus ' and ' Universalismus,' had been 
 brought out with a good deal of the dry old Oxford 
 
294 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 humor, and, naturally, not many of us had kept any 
 thought of Baur in our minds. But now I began to read 
 one of his chief books, and I can only describe what I 
 felt in the words lately attributed by his biographer to 
 Prof. Green : ' He thought the " Church History " the 
 most illuminating book he had ever read.' Clearly it 
 was overstrained and arbitrary in parts ; the theory was 
 forced, and the arrangement too symmetrical for histori- 
 cal or literary reality. But it seemed to me you might 
 say the same of Mebuhr and Wolff. Yet they had been, 
 and were still, the pioneers and masters of an age. "Why 
 not Baur in his line ? At any rate, it was clear to me 
 that his book was history ; it fell into line with all other 
 first-rate work in the historical department, whereas, what- 
 ever else they might be, Farrar's aud Edersheim's were 
 not history. That was my first acquaintance with German 
 theology, except some translations of Weiss and Dorner. 
 
 I had shrunk from it till then, and X had warned 
 
 me from it. But after reading Baur's ' Church History ' 
 and the 'Paul,' I suddenly made up my mind to go 
 abroad, and to give a year at least to the German critical 
 school. Well, so far, Eonalds, do you blame me ? " 
 
 And the speaker broke off abruptly, his almost excess- 
 ive calm of manner wavering a little, his eye seeking his 
 friend's. 
 
 Ronalds had sat till now shrunken together in the big 
 arm-chair, which, standing out against the uncurtained 
 window, through which came a winter twilight, seemed 
 lost again among the confused lines of the houses on 
 the opposite bank of the river, or of the barges going 
 slowly up stream. He roused himself at this, and bent 
 forward. 
 
 " Blame ? " the word had an odd ring ; " that de- 
 
THE FEW REFORMATION. 295 
 
 pends. How much did it cost you, all this, Merri- 
 man?" 
 
 " "What do you mean ? " 
 
 " What I say. It gives me a shiver as I listen to you. 
 I foresee the end — a dismal end, all through — and I 
 keep wondering whether you had ever anything to lose, 
 whether you were ever inside f If you were, could this 
 process you describe have gone on with so little check, 
 so little reaction % " 
 
 The firelight showed a flush on the fine ascetic cheek. 
 He had roused himself to speak strongly, but the effort 
 excited him. 
 
 Merriman left his post by the fire and began to pace 
 up and down. 
 
 " I had meant only to describe to you," he said, at 
 last, " an episode of intellectual history. The rest is be- 
 tween me — and God. It can not really be put into 
 words. But, as you know, I was brought up strictly and 
 religiously. You and I shared the same thoughts, the 
 same influences, the same religious services at Oxford. 
 These months I have been describing to you were months 
 of great misery on the side of feeling and practice. I 
 remember coming back one morning from an early serv- 
 ice, and thinking with a kind of despair what would 
 happen to me if I were ever forced to give up the Sacra- 
 ment. Yet the process went on all the same. I believe 
 it is very much a matter of temperament. I could not 
 master the passionate desire to think the matter through, 
 to harmonize knowledge and faith, to get to the bottom. 
 You might have done it, I think." And he stood still, look- 
 ing at his friend with a smile which had no satire in it. 
 
 " Of course, every Christian knows that there are 
 doubts and difficulties in the path of the faith, and that 
 
296 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 he may succumb to them if lie pleases," said Konalds, 
 after a pause ; " but if he is true he keeps close to his 
 Lord, and gives the answer of faith. He asks himself 
 which solves most problems — Christianity or agnosti- 
 cism. He looks round on the state of the world, on the 
 history of his own life, and on the work of Christ in both. 
 Is he going to give up the witness of the faith, of the 
 'holy men of old,' of the saints of the present, of his 
 own inmost life, because men of science, in a world which 
 is all inexplicable, tell him that miracle is impossible, or 
 because a generation or two of German professors — who 
 seem to him to spend most of their time, Penelope-like, 
 in unraveling their own webs — persist, in the face of a 
 living and divine reality, which attests itself to him every 
 day of his life, in telling him that the Church is a mere 
 human contrivance based upon a delusion and a lie ? 
 Above all, he will not venture himself deliberately, in a 
 state of immaturity and disarmament, into the enemy's 
 camp ; for ' he is not his own,' and what he bears in his 
 bosom, the treasure of the faith, is but confided to him 
 to be guarded with his life." 
 
 The musical vibrating voice sank with the closing 
 words. Merriman returned to his old position by the 
 fire, and was silent a minute. 
 
 "But even you," he said presently with a smile, "can 
 not deny reason some place in your scheme." 
 
 "Naturally," said the other, his tone of emotion 
 changing for one of sarcasm. " To the freethinker of 
 to-day we Christians are all sentimentalists — strong in 
 emotion, weak in brains. A religion which boasts in 
 England a Newton, a Hooker, a Butler, and a Newman 
 among its sons, is conceived of as having nothing rational 
 to say for itself. The charge is absurd on the face of it. 
 
TEE NEW REFORMATION. 297 
 
 We sayj indeed, that finally — in the last resort — a certain 
 disposition of soul is required for the due apprehension 
 of Christian truth ; that the process of apprehension con- 
 tains an act of faith which can not be evaded, and that 
 the rationalist who will accept nothing but what his 
 reason can indorse, is merely refusing the divine condi- 
 tion on which God's gift is offered to him. But that a 
 religion which is not justified and ordered by reason is a 
 religion full of danger — is not a religion, indeed, but a 
 mysticism — we know as well as you do, and the English 
 Church needs no one to teach her an elementary lesson. 
 English theology wants no apologist, and the man who 
 has not already gone over to the restlessness of unbelief 
 need not leave his own church in quest of guides. Will 
 you find more learning in all Germany than you can get in 
 Westcott and Lightf oot ? A better historian than Bishop 
 Stubbs ? A more omniscient knowledge of the history of 
 criticism and the canon than Dr. Salmon will give you, if 
 you take the trouble to read his books \ In all that you 
 have been saying I see — forgive me — a ludicrous want of 
 perspective and proportion. Why this craze for German 
 books and German professors ? Are there no thinkers in 
 the world but German ones % And what is the whole 
 history of German criticism but a history of brilliant fail- 
 ures, from Strauss downward? One theorist follows 
 another — now Mark is uppermost as the Ur- Evangelist, 
 now Matthew — now the Synoptics are sacrificed to St. 
 John, now St. John to the Synoptics. Baur relegates one 
 after another of the Epistles to the second century be- 
 cause his theory can not do with them in the first. Har- 
 nack tells you that Baur's theory is all wrong, and that 
 Thessalonians and Philippians must go back again. 
 Volkmar sweeps together Gospels and Epistles in a heap 
 
298 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 toward the middle of the second century as the earliest 
 date for almost all of them ; and Dr. Abbot, who, as we 
 are told, has absorbed all the learning of all the Germans, 
 puts Mark before 70 a. d. ; Matthew, just before 70 a. d. ; 
 and Luke, about 80 a. d. ! Strauss's mythical theory is 
 dead and buried by common consent; Baur's tendency 
 theory is much the same ; Renan will have none of the 
 Tubingen school ; Yolkmar is already antiquated ; and 
 Pfleiderer's fancies are now in the order of the day. 
 Meanwhile, we who believe in a risen Lord, look quietly 
 on, while the ' higher criticism ' swallows its own off- 
 spring. "When you have settled your own case, we say 
 to your friends and teachers, then ask us to listen to you. 
 Meanwhile we are practical men : the poor and wretched 
 are at our gates, and sin, sorrow, death, stand aside for no 
 one ! " 
 
 Merriman had been watching his companion during 
 this outburst with a curious expression, half combative, 
 half indulgent. When Ronalds stopped, he took a long 
 breath. 
 
 " I don't know whether you have read many of the 
 books ? " he asked, shortly. 
 
 " No, I don't read German ; and I am a busy parish 
 clergyman with little time to spare for superfluities. 
 
 But, as you remind me, S 's lectures taught one a good 
 
 deal, and I follow the matter in the press and the maga- 
 zines, or in conversation, as I come across it." 
 
 Merriman smiled. 
 
 " I suppose your answer would be the answer of four 
 fifths of English clergymen, if the question were put to 
 them. "Well, then, I am to take it for granted, Ronalds, 
 that to you the whole of German New Testament Wis- 
 senschqft, or, at any rate, what calls itself ' the German 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 299 
 
 critical school,' is practically indifferent. You regard it 
 in the words of a recent ' Quarterly ' article, as ' an at- 
 tack' which has < failed.' Yery well, let us leave the 
 matter there for the present. Suppose we go to the 
 Old Testament. Were you at the Manchester Church 
 Congress last year, and, if so, what was your impres- 
 sion ? " 
 
 Konalds leaned forward, looked steadily into the fire, 
 and did not answer for a moment or two. An expression 
 of pain and perplexity gradually rose in the delicate face, 
 in strong contrast with the inspiration, the confidence of 
 his previous manner. 
 
 " You mean as to the Historical Criticism debate \ " 
 
 Merriman nodded. 
 
 " It was extraordinarily interesting — very painful in 
 some ways. I doubt the wisdom of it. It raised more 
 questions than it solved. Since then I have had it much 
 in my mind ; but my life gives me no time to work at 
 the subjects in detail." 
 
 " Did it, or did it not, prove to your mind, as it did 
 to mine, that there is a vital change going on, not only in 
 the lay, but in the clerical conceptions of the Old Testa- 
 ment? Did your memory, like mine, travel back to 
 Pusey, to the condemnation of Colenso by all the Bishops 
 and five-sixths of Convocation, to the writers in. the 
 6 Speaker's Commentary ' who refuted him ? " 
 
 " There is a change, certainly," said Ronalds, slowly ; 
 "but" — and he raised his head with a light gesture, as of 
 one shaking off a weight — "my faith is not bound up 
 with the religious books of the Jews — 'God spake 
 through the prophets,' through Israel's training, through 
 the Psalms — leave me that faith, which, indeed, in its 
 broad essential elements, you have never yet been able 
 
300 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 to touch ; give me the Gospels and St. Paul, and I at 
 least am content." 
 
 " ' My faith is not bound up with the religious books 
 of the Jews,' " repeated Merriman. " I noticed almost a 
 similar sentence in an article by the Bishop of Carlisle 
 rather more than a year ago. What it means is that you 
 and he have adopted, so far as the Old Testament is con- 
 cerned, the standpoint of i Essays and Reviews.' He is a 
 Bishop, you a High Churchman. Yet thirty years ago 
 the Bishops and the High Churchmen prosecuted ' Essays 
 and Reviews ' in two Ecclesiastical Courts ; and Jowett's 
 essay, in which the thoughts you have just expressed were 
 practically embodied, cost him at Oxford his salary as 
 professor. But to return to the Church Congress. The 
 distinctive note of its most distinctive debate, as it seems 
 to me, was the glorification of ' criticism,' especially, no 
 doubt, in relation to the Old Testament. Turn to the 
 passages. I have the report here" — and he drew the 
 volume toward him and turned up some marked pages. 
 " Eirst, ' I hold to be established beyond all controversy 
 that the Pentateuch in its present form was not written 
 by Moses.' That comes from the Dean of Peterborough. 
 The same speaker says, further, ' Of the composite 
 character of the Hexateuch there can be no question. 
 " The proofs have been often set forth," says Dr. Robert- 
 son Smith, " and never answered." To say that they 
 have any connection with rationalistic principles is simply 
 to say that scholarship and rationalism are identical, for on 
 this point Hebraists of all schools are agreed.' — But if the 
 Hexateuch be composite, a redaction of different docu- 
 ments from unknown hands, by an unknown editor, 
 what becomes of its scriptural authority — what especially 
 becomes of the doctrine of the Fall? — Poor Pusey ! with 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 301 
 
 his ' amazement ' that any mind could be shaken by such 
 arguments as those contained in the first book of Colenso ; 
 or poor Wilberf orce, with his contempt for the ' old and 
 often-refuted cavils ' brought forward by the assailants of 
 the Pentateuch ! 
 
 " But there is another passage a little further on in 
 the Congress debate, which would have touched Pusey 
 still more nearly. 'The certainties already attained by 
 criticism,' cries Prof. Cheyne triumphantly, 'are neither 
 few nor unimportant. Think of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, 
 Daniel, and Ecclesiastes ! ' i Think of Daniel ! ' One 
 can still hear Pusey thundering away : ' Others who wrote 
 in defense of the faith engaged in large subjects. I took 
 for my province one more confined but definite issue. I 
 selected the Book of Daniel. "What I have proposed to 
 myself in this course of lectures is to meet a boastful 
 criticism upon its own grounds, and to show its failure 
 where it claims to be most triumphant.' i I have answered 
 the objections raised,' he declares ; but he can not ' affect 
 to believe that they have any special plausibility.' What 
 loftiness of tone all through ! what a sternness of moral 
 indignation toward the miserable skeptics, whose theories 
 as to Daniel and the rest have been let loose, through 
 6 Essays and Reviews,' ' on the young and uninstructed ' 1 
 "Well, five-and-twenty years go by, and the Church of 
 England practically gives its verdict as between Pusey 
 and the German or English infidels whom he trampled 
 on, and, in spite of that tone of Apostolic certainty, 
 judgment goes finally, even within the Church, not for 
 the Anglican leader, but for the ' infidels ' ! The Book 
 of Daniel, despite a hesitating protest here and there, like 
 that of Dr. Stanley Leathes, or some bewildered country 
 clergyman writing to the * Guardian,' comes quietly and 
 
302 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 irrevocably down to 165 b. c, and the Hexateuch, dis- 
 solved more or less into its original sources, announces 
 itself as the peculiar product of that Jewish religious 
 movement which, beginning under Josiah, strengthens 
 with the Exile, and yields its final fruits long after the 
 Exile! . . . 
 
 " But this whole debate is remarkable to a degree — as 
 the debate of a Church Congress. It is penetrated and 
 preoccupied with the claims of ' criticism.' Its subject is 
 whether ' critical results ' (especially in connection with 
 the Old Testament) are to be taught from the pulpits of 
 the Church of England, and these results, as described by 
 almost all the speakers, involve a complete reconstruction 
 of an English Churchman's ideas on the subject of the 
 early history, laws, and religion of the Jews — matters 
 which he has always regarded, and which, indeed, he 
 logically must regard, as intimately bound up with his 
 Christian faith. Now all this, especially as one looks 
 back twenty-five years, to the Synodical condemnation of 
 Colenso, and of ' Essays and Reviews,' strikes one as a 
 sufficiently remarkable phenomenon. The question is, 
 What forces have Drought it about f Well, there can be 
 very little debate as to that. No doubt science and Prof. 
 Huxley have had their way with the Mosaic cosmogony, 
 and the methods and spirit of science provide an atmos- 
 phere which insensibly affects all our modes of thought. 
 But we are passing out of the scientific phase of Old 
 Testament criticism. That has, so to speak, done its 
 work. It is the literary and historical phase which is 
 now uppermost. And in the matter of the literary his- 
 tory of the Old Testament the present collapse of English 
 orthodoxy is due to one cause, as far as I can see, and 
 one cause only — the invasion of English by German 
 
TEE NEW REFORMATION. 303 
 
 thought. Instead of marching side by side with Germany 
 and Holland during the last thirty years, as we might 
 have done, had our theological faculties been other than 
 what they are, we have been attacked and conquered by 
 them ; we have been skirmishing or protesting, feeding 
 ourselves with the ' Record ' and the ' Church Times,' 
 reading the ' Speaker's Commentary,' or the productions 
 of the Christian Evidence Society, till the process of 
 penetration from without has slowly completed itself, and 
 we find ourselves suddenly face to face with such a fact 
 as this Church Congress debate, and the rise and marked 
 success of a younger school of critics — Cheyne, Driver, 
 Eobertson Smith — whom the Germans may fairly regard 
 as the captives of their bow and spear. 
 
 " For look at the names of scholars quoted in this very 
 debate — all of them German, with the great exception of 
 Kuenen ! And look back over the history of the Penta- 
 teuchal controversy itself! It begins in Holland with 
 Spinoza, or in France with the oratorian Richard Simon, 
 two hundred years ago. Simon starts the literary criti- 
 cism of the Mosaic books, from the Catholic side. Jean 
 le Clerc, a Dutch Protestant theologian in Amsterdam, 
 about 1685, starts the historical method, inquires as to 
 the time and circumstances of composition, and so on — 
 first conceives it, in fact, as an historical problem. Sev- 
 enty years later comes the Montpellier physician, Jean 
 Astruc. He first notices the key to the whole enigma, 
 the distinctive use made of the words ' Elohim ' and ' Jah- 
 veh.' This leads him to the supposition of different 
 strata in the Pentateuch, and from him descend in direct 
 line Kuenen and "Wellhausen. — It is instructive, by-the- 
 way, to notice that all the time Astruc will have nothing 
 to say to arguments against the Mosaic authorship of the 
 
304: AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Pentateuch. c That,' he says, scornfully, ' was the disease 
 of the last century' — an ' attack,' in fact, which had 
 c failed ' ! — Well, then Astruc's 4 Conjectures ' pass into 
 Germany, and meet there at first with very much the 
 same reception from German orthodoxy that English 
 oxthodoxy gave Colenso. Till Eichhorn's 'Einleitung' 
 appears. From that point the patient, industrious mind 
 of Germany throws itself seriously on the problem, and 
 a whole new and vast development begins. Thencefor- 
 ward not a name of any importance that is not German, 
 except that of Kuenen, who is altogether German in 
 method and science, down to our own day, when at last 
 among ourselves a school of English scholars trained in 
 the German results, and enthusiastically eager to diffuse 
 them, has risen to take away our reproach, and has hardly 
 begun to work before the effects on English popular re- 
 ligion are everywhere conspicuous. 
 
 " Well, I don't know what you feel, Ronalds, but all 
 these things to me, at any rate, are immensely significant. 
 I say to myself, it has taken some thirty years for German 
 critical science to conquer English opinion in the matter 
 of the Old Testament. But, except in the regions of an 
 either illiterate or mystical prejudice, that conquest is 
 now complete. How much longer will it take before we 
 feel the victory of the same science, carried on by the 
 same methods and with the sams ends, in a field of knowl- 
 edge infinitely more precious and vital to English popular 
 religion than the field of the Old Testament — before Ger- 
 many imposes upon us not only her conceptions with 
 regard to the history and literature of the Jews, but also 
 those which she has been elaborating for half a century 
 with regard to that history which is the natural heir and 
 successor of the Jewish — the history of Christian origins ? " 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION, 305 
 
 " In your opinion, no doubt, a very few years indeed," 
 returned Ronalds, recovering that attractive cheerfulness 
 of look which was characteristic of him. " As for me, I 
 see no necessary connection between the two subjects. 
 The period covered by the New Testament is much nar- 
 rower, the material of a different quality, the evidence 
 infinitely more accessible, the possibility of mistakes on 
 the part of the Church infinitely less. And whatever 
 may be said of our Old Testament scholarship, not even 
 the most self-satisfied German can speak disrespectfully 
 of us in the matter of the New. As I said before, with 
 men like Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and Salmon as the 
 leaders and champions of our faith on the intellectual 
 side, we have very little, as it seems to me, to fear from 
 any skeptical foreign Wissenschaft. Besides, what can 
 be more unfair, Merriman, than to speak as if the whole 
 of this Wissenschaft were on one side % Neander, 
 Weiss, Dorner, Tischendorf, Luthardt; these are names 
 as famous in the world as any of the so-called ' critical ' 
 names, and they are the names, not of assailants, but of 
 defenders of our faith. And as to the assault on the 
 Christian documents, we can appeal not only to Christian 
 writers, but to a skeptic like Renan, in whose opinion the 
 assault has been repulsed and discredited. No ! here at 
 least we are stronger, not weaker, than we were thirty 
 years ago. Every weapon that a hostile science could 
 suggest has been brought to bear against the tower of our 
 faith, and it stands more victoriously than ever, foursquare 
 to all the winds that blow." 
 
 "And meanwhile every diocesan conference rings 
 with the wail over 'infidel opinions,'" said Merriman 
 quietly. " It grows notoriously more and more difficult 
 to get educated men to take any interest in the services 
 
306 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 or doctrines of the Church, though they will join eagerly 
 in its philanthropy ; literature and the periodical press are 
 becoming either more indifferent or more hostile to the 
 accepted Christianity year by year ; the upper strata of 
 the working class, upon whom the future of that class 
 depends, either stand coldly aloof from all the Christian 
 sects, or throw themselves into secularism; and Arch- 
 deacon Farrar, preaching on the prosecution of the Bishop 
 of Lincoln, passionately appeals to all sections of Chris- 
 tians to close their ranks, not against each other, but 
 against the ' skepticism rampant ' among the cultivated 
 class, and the religious indifference of the democracy. — 
 But let me take your points in order. No doubt there 
 is a large and flourishing school of orthodox theology in 
 Germany. So, seventy years ago, there was a large and 
 flourishing school in Germany of defenders of the Mosaic 
 authorship and date of the Pentateuch. One can run 
 over the names — Fritzsche, Scheibel, Jahn, Dahler, Rosen- 
 muller, Herz, Hug, Sack, Pustkuchen, Kanne, Meyer, 
 Staudlin — who now remembers one of them? Of all 
 their books, says a French Protestant, sketching the con- 
 troversy, il rdest reste que le souvenir oVun hero'ique et 
 impuissant effort It is not their work, but that of their 
 opponents, which has lived and penetrated, has trans- 
 formed opinion and is molding the future. They repre- 
 sented the exceptional, the traditional, the miraculous, and 
 they have had to give way to the school representing the 
 normal, the historical, the rational. And yet not one of 
 them but did not believe that he had crushed De Wette 
 and all his works ! Is not all probability, all analogy, all 
 the past, so to speak, on our side when we prophesy a 
 like fate for those schools of the present which, in the 
 field of Christian origins, represent the exceptional, the 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 307 
 
 traditional, the miraculous ? For what we have been wit- 
 nessing so far is the triumph of a principle, of an order 
 of ideas, and this principle, this order, belongs to us, not 
 to you, and is as applicable to Christian history as it is to 
 Jewish. 
 
 "Then as to our own theology. Let me be disre- 
 spectful to no one. But I should like to ask you what 
 possibility is there in this country of a scientific, that is 
 to say, an unprejudiced, an unbiased study of theology, 
 under present conditions ? All our theological faculties 
 are subordinate to the Church ; the professors are clergy- 
 men, the examiners in the theological schools must be in 
 priest's orders. They are, in fact, in that position to 
 which the reactionary orthodoxy of Germany tried — un- 
 successfully — to reduce the German universities after '48. 
 Read the protest of the theological faculty of Gottingen 
 against an attempt of the sort. It is given, if I remember 
 right, in Hausrath's ' Life of Strauss,' and you will real- 
 ize the opinion of learned Germany as to the effect of 
 such a relation between the Church and the universities 
 as obtains here, on the progress of knowledge. The re- 
 sults of our English system are precisely what you might 
 expect — great industry and great success in textual criti- 
 cism in all the branches of what the Germans call the 
 niedere Kritik, complete sterility, as far as the higher 
 criticism — that is to say, the effort to reconceive Chris- 
 tianity in the light of the accumulations of modern knowl- 
 edge — is concerned.* "When Pattison made his proposals 
 
 * It is clear that Herriman has here overlooked certain names he might 
 have mentioned — those of Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sanday, for instance — and 
 outside the Church of England and the theological faculties, those of R. W. 
 Hacan, the author of one of the most comprehensive and scholarly mono- 
 graphs that exist in English ; of the veteran Dr. Davidson ; of Mr. R. F. 
 
308 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 as to the reorganization of studies at Oxford, he did not 
 trouble himself to include therein any proposals as to the 
 theological faculty. Until the whole conditions under 
 which that faculty exists could be altered, he knew that 
 to meddle with it would be useless. All that could be 
 expected from it was a certain amonnt of exegetical work 
 and a more or less respectable crop of apologetic, and 
 that it produced. But he did not leave the subject with- 
 out drawing up a comparison between the opportunities 
 of the theological student at Oxford and those of the 
 same student at any German university — a comparison 
 which set one thinking. His complaints of the quality 
 and range of English theological research have been 
 often repeated ; they were echoed at last year's Church 
 Congress by Prof. Cheyne — but, in fact, the matter is 
 notorious. You have only to glance from the English 
 field to the German, from our own cramped conditions 
 and meager product to the German abundance and va- 
 riety, to appreciate Pattison's remark in the ' Westmin- 
 ster,' in 1857. I forget the exact words — ' it is a mis- 
 nomer to speak of German theology. It is more prop- 
 erly the theology of the age ' — the only scientific treat- 
 ment of the materials which exists. Like other great 
 movements, it rises in this country or that, but it ends by 
 penetrating into all. For my own part, I believe that we 
 in England, with regard to this German study of Chris- 
 
 Horton, whose illogical and interesting book on "The Inspiration of Script- 
 ure " breathes change and transition in every page ; of Dr. Drummond, 
 whose admirable " Philo " is full of the best spirit of modern learning. 
 But three or four swallows do not make a summer, and Merriman's mind is 
 evidently possessed with the thought of that atmosphere, that vast sur- 
 rounding literature which in Germany supports and generates the individual 
 effort. 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 309 
 
 tianity, are now at the beginning of an epoch of popu- 
 larization. The books which record it have been studied 
 in England, Scotland, and America with increasing eager- 
 ness during the last fifteen years by a small class ; in the 
 next fifteen years we shall probably see their contents re- 
 produced in English form and penetrating public opinion 
 in a new and surprising way. A minimum of readers 
 among us read German, and translations only affect a 
 small and mostly professional stratum of opinion. But 
 when we get our own English lives of Christ and histo- 
 ries of the primitive Church, written on German princi- 
 ples in the tone and speech familiar to the English world, 
 then will come the struggle. "With regard to the Old 
 Testament, this is precisely what has happened — the 
 struggle has come — and already we see much of the re- 
 sult. 
 
 "Finally, as to Renan," Merriman lay back in his 
 chair, and a smile broadened over the whole face — " I am 
 always puzzled by the readiness with which the English- 
 man uses Renan as a stick to beat the Germans. Forgive 
 me, Ronalds — but doesn't it sometimes occur to you that 
 the Germans may have something to say about Renan ? 
 Isn't their whole contention about him that he is a great 
 artist, a brilliant historian, but an uncertain critic ? Am- 
 iel, who, though a Genevese, was brought up at Berlin, 
 exactly expresses German opinion when he lays stress 
 on the contradiction in Renan * between the literary taste 
 of the artist, which is delicate, individual, and true, and 
 the opinions of the critic, which are borrowed, old-fash- 
 ioned, and wavering.' In the course of time this judg- 
 ment becomes patent to Renan, and the result appears in 
 certain uncivil passages about young German professors 
 in the preface to ' Les Evangiles,' and elsewhere. What 
 
310 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 matter ? The face of Knowledge remains the same. 
 Kenan is still, as Taine long ago remarked, the main ex- 
 pounder of German theological Wissenschaft for the 
 world in general ; in spite of his own great learning the 
 ' Origines du Christianisme ' could not have been written 
 without the thirty years of German labor lying behind it. 
 And, as a principle — whether it is a great Frenchman 
 determined to combine the artist with the savant, or an 
 Englishman straggling to fuse Anglicanism with learn- 
 ing, as soon as it comes to serious differences between 
 them and the German critical schools, I can only say that 
 the impartial historical spectator will be all for the chances 
 of the Germans, simply from his knowledge of the gen- 
 eral lie of the field ! Oh, these Germans ! " and the 
 speaker shook his head with an expression half humorous, 
 half protesting. " Yes, we arraign them, and justly, for 
 their type and their style, their manners or no-manners, 
 their dullness and their length. And all the time what 
 Taine said long ago in his study of Carlyle, remains as 
 true as ever. Let me turn to the passage, I have pon- 
 dered it often," and he drew a little note-book to him, 
 which was lying beside his hand. 
 
 Thus, at the end of the last century there rose into being the 
 philosophic genius of Germany, which, after engendering a new 
 metaphysic, a new theology, a new poetry, a new literature, a new 
 philology, a new exegesis, a new learning, is now descending into 
 all the sciences, and there carrying on its evolution. No spirit more 
 original, more universal, more fruitful in consequences of all sorts, 
 more capable of transforming everything and remaking everything, 
 has shown itself in the world for three hundred years. It is of the 
 same significance, the same rank as that of the Renaissance and that 
 of the Classical Period. Like those earlier forces, it draws to itself 
 all the best endeavor of contemporary intelligence, it appears as they 
 did in every civilized country, it represents as they did " un des 
 moments de l'histoire du monde." 
 
THE JSTEW REFORMATION, 311 
 
 The enthusiast dropped the book, with a smile at his 
 own warmth. Ronalds smiled too, but more sadly, and 
 the two friends sat silent awhile. Merriman filled a new 
 pipe, his keen look showing the rise within him of 
 thoughts as quick and numerous as the spirals of blue 
 smoke which presently came and went between him and 
 his friend. 
 
 After a minute or two, he said, bending forward : 
 " But all that, Ronalds, was by-the-way. Let me go 
 back to myself and this change of view I am trying to 
 explain to you. You have given me your opinion, which 
 I suppose is a very common one among English Church- 
 men, that the whole movement of German critical the- 
 ology is an ' attack ' which has ' failed,' that the ortho- 
 dox position is really stronger than before it began, and 
 so on. Well, let me put side by side with that conviction 
 of yours, my own, which has been gained during eighteen 
 months' intense effort, spent all of it on German soil, in 
 the struggle to understand something of the past history 
 and the present situation of German critical theology. 
 Take it from 1835, fifty-four years. Practically, the 
 movement which matters to us begins with the shock and 
 scandal of Strauss's ' Leben Jesu,' which appeared in that 
 year. Strauss, who, like Renan, was an artist and a writer, 
 derived, as we all know, his philosophical impulse from 
 Hegel, his critical impulse from Schleiermacher. Phil- 
 osophically he appealed from Hegel the orthodox con- 
 servative to Hegel the thinker. ' You taught us,' he says 
 in effect to his great teacher, ' that there are two elements 
 in all religion, the passing and the eternal, the relative and 
 the absolute, the Vorstellung and the Begriff, The par- 
 ticular system of dogmas put forward by any religion is 
 the Vorstellung or presentation, the Begriff or idea is the 
 
312 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 underlying spiritual reality common to it and presumably 
 other systems besides. Why in Christianity have you 
 gone so far toward identifying the two ? Why this ex- 
 ception ? For what reasons have you allowed to the Vor- 
 stellung in Christianity a value which belongs only to the 
 Begrifff Your reasons must rest upon the Christian evi- 
 dence. But the evidence can not bear the weight. Ex- 
 amine it carefully, and you will see that the particular 
 statements which it makes are really only Vorstellung as 
 in other religions, the imaginative mythical elements 
 which hide from us the Idea or Begriff. The idea which 
 is expressed in Christian theology is the idea of God in 
 man. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus 
 are shadows of the eternal generation, the endless self- 
 repetition of the Divine life. The single facts are mere 
 sensuous symbols. " To the idea in the fact, to the race 
 in the individual, our age wishes to be led.' " Naturally 
 to achieve this end the Gospels as history had to be swept 
 away. And they were remorselessly swept away. Some- 
 thing indeed remained. There was a Jewish teacher, 
 Jesus of Nazareth, in whom contemporary truth saw first 
 the Messiah, then the Son of God, then the Logos. But 
 his life and character were comparatively unimportant — 
 so it stood, at least, in the earliest and latest ' Leben 
 Jesu ' ; what was important was the idealizing my thopoeic 
 faculty which from the Jesus of the Galilean Lake evolved 
 the Christ of Bethlehem, of the miracles, of the resurrec- 
 tion, of theology. Thus the whole method was specula- 
 tive and a priori. There was in it a minimum of history, 
 a minimum indeed of literary criticism. Strauss criticised 
 the contents of the Christian literature without under- 
 standing the literary and historical conditions which had 
 produced it. Of the real life and culture of the men who 
 
TEE NEW REFORMATION. 313 
 
 wrote it, of the real historical conditions surrounding the 
 person of Jesus, he had almost as little notion as the dog- 
 matic historians who undertook to answer him. 
 
 " Luckily, however, not only orthodoxy, but the spirit 
 of history, took alarm, and from the revolt of history 
 agaiust hypothesis began the Tubingen school. Baur, 
 that veteran of knowledge, was struck, in the first place, 
 with the fact which Strauss's book revealed, that a scien- 
 tific knowledge of Christian sources was as yet wanting 
 to theology ; in the next, he was imbued with the con- 
 ception that the Gospels had been till then placed in a 
 false perspective both by Strauss and New Testament 
 criticism generally — that not they, but the Pauline Epis- 
 tles, represent the earliest and directest testimony we 
 have to Christian belief. From this standpoint he began 
 a complete re- examination of early Christian literature, 
 conceiving it as a chapter in the history of thought. 
 How did the circle of disciples surrounding Jesus of 
 Nazareth broaden into the Catholic Church? Can the 
 steps of that development be traced in the books of the 
 New Testament ? If so, how are the separate books to 
 be classed and interpreted with relation to the general 
 movement % We all know the famous answer, how the 
 Catholic Church of the second century is but the product 
 of a great compromise come to under the pressure of 
 heresy by the two primitive opposing parties, the Petrine 
 and the Pauline, which for about a hundred years had 
 divided Christian literature between them, so that all its 
 products, Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, are, in a 
 sense, pamphlets, controversial documents written in the 
 interests of one or the other body of opinion. Well, here 
 at last was history — as compared either with Strauss's 
 philosophizing, or with the idyllic but unintelligible pict- 
 14 
 
314 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 ure presented by the Early Church as it was drawn, say, 
 by Neander. But it was not yet pure history. It was 
 marred by a too great love of system-making, of arbitrary 
 antithesis and formulae, learned, of course, from Hegel, 
 which took far too little account of the variety, the 
 nuances, the complexity and many-sidedness which be- 
 longed to the early Christian life, as to all life, but espe- 
 cially the rich and fermenting life of a nascent religion. 
 The clew was found, but in spite of the genius of Baur 
 — and to my mind we owe to him all that we really know 
 at the present moment about the New Testament — it had 
 been too arbitrarily and confidently followed up. 
 
 " Again history protested, and again critical theology 
 fell patiently to work. 
 
 " It was conscious of two wants — a deeper and more 
 comprehensive understanding of the personality and work 
 of Jesus, which Baur, who had thrown a flood of light 
 on Paul, had notoriously left un attempted ; and in the 
 second place, it was striving toward a more lifelike and 
 convincing picture of the early Christian society. From 
 a study of Christian ideas, it passed to a closer study of 
 the conditions under which they arose, of that whole 
 culture, social and intellectual, Jewish or Hellenic, of 
 which they were presumably the product. Collateral 
 knowledge poured in on all sides — of the history of re- 
 ligions, of Roman institutions, of the developments and 
 ramifications of Hellenic and Hellenistic thought. The 
 workers following Baur fell into different groups; Hil- 
 genfeld on the right, softening and moderating Baur's 
 more negative conclusions ; Yolkmar on the left, develop- 
 ing them extravagantly, yet evolving in the process an 
 amount of learning, ingenuity, and suggestiveness which 
 will leave its mark when his specific conclusions as to the 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 315 
 
 dates of the New Testament books are no longer remem- 
 bered. Meanwhile two oppositions to the Tiibingen 
 school had shown themselves — the dogmatic and the sci- 
 entific. Of the first not much need be said. Its most 
 honored name is that of Bernhard Weiss, but the great 
 majority of its books, written to meet the orthodox needs 
 of the moment, are already forgotten. On the other 
 hand, the scientific opposition represented by Reuss, 
 Rothe, Ewald, and Ritschl did admirable work. It 
 brought Baur's ideas to the test in every possible way, 
 and it supplied fresh ideas, fresh solutions of its own. 
 Reuss's cautious and exhaustive method led the student 
 to think out the whole problem for himself anew ; Rothe 
 drew out the debt of Christianity to Greek and Latin 
 institutions ; while Bitschl tracked out shades and nuances 
 in early Christianity which Baur's over-logical method 
 had missed. 
 
 "The years went on. "With each the spirit of the 
 time became more historical, more concrete. The forces 
 generated by the great German historical school, by 
 Banke, and Mommsen, and Waitz, and by the offshoots 
 of this school in France and England, made themselves 
 felt more and more on theological ground. A new series 
 of biographies of Jesus began. Strauss, after an absti- 
 nence of twenty years from theology, issued a new edition 
 of the ' Leben Jesu,' largely modified by concessions to 
 a more historical and positive spirit. Schenkel published 
 his < Charakterbild Jesu,' by which, in spite of what we 
 should call its Broad Church orthodoxy, German clerical 
 opinion was almost as violently exercised as it had been 
 by Strauss thirty years before. Keim began his most 
 interesting, most important, and most imperfect book, 
 ' Jesus von Nazara,' and beyond the frontier Kenan 
 
316 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 brought the results of two generations' labor within the 
 reach of the whole educated world by the historical brill- 
 iance and acumen thrown into the successive volumes of 
 the ' Origines.' In all this a generation has passed away 
 since Baur died, and we are brought again to a point 
 where we can provisionally strike a balance of results. 
 Do you remember Harnack' s article on the present state 
 of critical theology in the ' Contemporary ' two years or 
 more ago ? Harnack is a man of great ability and ex- 
 traordinary industry, largely read in Germany and begin- 
 ning to be largely read here. Well — as compared with 
 the state of knowledge thirty years ago, when the Tubin- 
 gen school was at its height, his verdict on the knowledge 
 of to-day is simply this — ' richer in historical points of 
 view? Harnack himself has carried opposition to some 
 of the most characteristic Tubingen conclusions almost to 
 extravagance; but here in this careful and fair-minded 
 summary is not a word of disrespect to a famous school 
 and ' a great master,' not a word of an ' attack ' which has 
 ' failed.' Because the person who is speaking knows 
 better ! Yet he draws with a firm hand the positive ad- 
 vances, the altered aspects of knowledge. Why have we 
 come to know more of that problem of the rise of Cathol- 
 icism, to which Baur devoted his life, than Baur could 
 ever know ? Simply because ' we have grown more 
 realistic, more elastic, the historical temper has de- 
 veloped, we have acquired the power of transplanting 
 ourselves into other times. Great historians— men like 
 Eanke — have taught us this. Then we have realized 
 that all history is one, that religion and church history is 
 a mere section of the whole history of a period, and can 
 not be understood except in relation to that whole.' And 
 so on. My whole experience in Germany was an illus- 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 317 
 
 tration of these words. As compared with my Oxford 
 divinity training, it was like passing from a world of 
 shadows to a world of living and breathing humanity. 
 Each of my three professors on his own ground was grap- 
 pling with the secret of the past, drawing it out with the 
 spells of learning, sympathy, and imagination, working 
 all the while perfectly freely, unhampered by subscrip- 
 tion or articles, or the requirements of examinations. 
 Our own. theology can show nothing like it ; the most 
 elementary conditions of such work are lacking among 
 us; it will take the effort of a generation to provide 
 thein. 
 
 " Two books in particular occur to me — if you are not 
 weary of my disquisition ! — as representing this most 
 recent phase of development ; Schiirer's ' Geschichte des 
 jiidischen Yolkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,' and Hausrath's 
 ' Eeutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.' In the first you 
 have a minute study of all the social and intellectual ele- 
 ments in the life of Judea and Judaism generally, at the 
 time of the appearance of Christianity. In the second 
 you have the same materials, only handled in a more con- 
 secutive and artistic way, and as a setting first for the life 
 of Jesus, and afterward for the history of the Apostles. 
 If you compare them with Strauss, you see with startling 
 clearness how far we have traveled in half a century. 
 There, an empty background, an effaced personality, and 
 in its stead the play of philosophical abstraction. Here, 
 a landscape of extraordinary detail and realism, peopled 
 with the town and country populations which belong to 
 it ; Pharisee and Essen e, Sadducee and Hellenist, stand- 
 ing out with the dress and utterance and gesture native 
 to each ; and in their midst the figure which is at last be- 
 coming real, intelligible, human, as it has never yet been, 
 
318 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 and which in these latter days we are beginning again to 
 see with something of the vision of those who first loved 
 and obeyed! — The contrast sets ns looking back with 
 wonder over the long, long road. But there is no break 
 in it, no serions deviation. From the beginning till now 
 the driving impulse has been the same — the impulse to 
 understand, the yearning toward a unified and rational- 
 ized knowledge. Each step has been necessary, and each 
 step a development. A diluted and falsified history was 
 first driven out by thought, which was then, as it were, 
 left alone for a time on ground cleared by violence ; now 
 a juster thought has replaced the old losses by a truer 
 history, a fuller and exacter range of conceptions. — An 
 i attack ' which has ' failed? — Could any description be 
 more ludicrous than this common English label applied 
 to a great and so far triumphant movement of thought ? 
 Looking back over the controversy, whether as to the Old 
 Testament or the New, I see a similar orthodox judgment 
 asserting itself again and again — generally as an immedi- 
 ate prelude to some fresh and imposing development of 
 the critical process — and again and again routed by 
 events. At the present moment it could only arise, like 
 your quotation of Renan, if you will let me say so — and 
 I mean no offense — in a country and amid minds for the 
 most part willingly ignorant of the whole actual situation. 
 Just as much as the criticism of Roman institutions and 
 primitive Roman history has failed, just as much as the 
 scientific investigation of Buddhism during the present 
 century has failed, in the same degree has the critical in- 
 vestigation of Christianity failed — no more ! In all three 
 fields there has been the same alternation of hypothesis 
 and verification, of speculative thought modified by con- 
 trolling fact. But because some of Niebuhr's views as to 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 319 
 
 the trustworthiness of Livy have been corrected here and 
 there in a more conservative sense by his successors — 
 because Senart's speculations as to the mythical elements 
 of Buddhism have been checked in certain directions by 
 the conviction of a later school, that from the Pali texts 
 now being brought to light a greater substratum of fact 
 may be recovered for the life of Buddha and the primi- 
 tive history of his order than was at one time suspected 
 — because of these fluctuations of scholarship you do not 
 point a hasty finger of scorn at the modern studies of 
 Eoman history or of Buddhism ! Still less, I imagine, 
 are you prepared to go back to an implicit belief in 
 Rhea Sylvia, or to find the miracles of early Buddhism 
 more historically convincing ! " 
 
 Eonalds looked up quickly. " We do not admit your 
 parallel for a moment ! In the first place, the Christian 
 phenomena are unique in the history of the world, and 
 can not be profitably compared on equal terms with any 
 other series of phenomena. In the second, the varia- 
 tions which do not substantially affect the credit of schol- 
 arship in matters stretching so far over time and place as 
 Roman history or Buddhism are of vital consequence 
 when it comes to Christianity. The period is so much 
 narrower, the possibilities so much more limited. To 
 throw back the Gospels from the second century, where 
 Baur and Yolkmar placed them, to the last thirty years 
 of the first, is practically to surrender the bases of the 
 rationalist theory. You give yourself no time for the 
 play of legend, and, instead of idealizing followers writ- 
 ing mythical and hearsay accounts, the critic himself 
 brings us back into the presence of either eye-witnesses, 
 or at any rate the reporters of eye-witnesses. He has 
 treated the testimony as he pleased, has subjected it to 
 
320 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 every harsh, irreverent test his ingenuity could suggest, 
 and, instead of either getting rid of it wholesale or forcing 
 it into the mold of his own arbitrary conceptions, he is 
 obliged to put up with it, to acknowledge in it a power 
 he can not overpass — the witness of truth to the living 
 truth ! " 
 
 "< Obliged to put up with it'!" said Merriman with 
 a smile, in which, however, there was a touch of deep 
 melancholy. " How oddly such a phrase describes that 
 patient, loving investigation of every vestige and frag- 
 ment of Christian antiquity which has been the work of 
 the critical school, and to which the orthodox Church, 
 little as she will acknowledge it, owes all the greater rea- 
 sonableness and livingness of her own modern Christian- 
 ity! On the contrary, Ronalds, men like Harnack and 
 Hausrath have no quarrel with Christian testimony, no 
 antipathy whatever to what it has to say. They have 
 simply by long labor come to understand it, to be able to 
 translate it. They, and a vast section of the thinking 
 Christian world with them, have merely learned not to 
 ask of that testimony more than it can give. They have 
 come to recognize that it was conditioned by certain ne- 
 cessities of culture, certain laws of thought ; that in a 
 time which had no conception of history or of accurate 
 historical reporting in our sense — a time which produced 
 the allegorical interpretations of Alexandria, the Rabbini- 
 cal interpretations of St. Paul and the Gospels, the his- 
 torical method of Josephus, the superstitions of Justin 
 and Papias, the childish criticism and information of Ire- 
 nseus, and the mass of pseudepigraphical literature which 
 meets us at every turn before, and in, and after the New 
 Testament — it is useless to expect to find a history which 
 is not largely legend, a tradition which is not largely de- 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 321 
 
 lusion. Led by experience gathered not only from Chris- 
 tian history, but from all history, they expect beforehand 
 what the Christian documents reveal. They see a sense 
 of history so weak that, in preserving the tradition of the 
 Lord, it can not keep clear and free from manifest con- 
 tradiction even the most essential facts, not even the na- 
 tive place of his parents, the duration of his ministry, the 
 date of his death, the place and time and order of the 
 Resurrection appearances, the length of the mysterious 
 period intervening between the Resurrection and the As- 
 cension ; and in preserving the tradition of the Apostles, 
 it can not record with certainty for their disciples even 
 the most essential facts as to their later lives, the scenes 
 of their labors, the manner of their deaths. On all these 
 points the documents show naively — as all early traditions 
 do — the most irreconcilable discrepancies. The critical 
 historian could have foretold them, finds them the most 
 natural thing in the world. On the other hand, he grows 
 familiar, as the inquiry grows deeper, with that fund of 
 fancy and speculation, of superstitious belief or national- 
 ist hope, in the mind of the first Christian period, the 
 bulk of which he knows to be much older than the ap- 
 pearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and wherein he can trace 
 the elements which conditioned the activity of the Mas- 
 ter, and colored all the thoughts of his primitive follow- 
 ers about him. He measures the strength of these fan- 
 tastic or poetical conceptions of nature and history by the 
 absence or weakness, in the society producing them, of 
 that controlling logical and scientific instinct which it has 
 been the work of succeeding centuries, of the toil of later 
 generations, to develop in mankind ; and when he sees 
 the passion of the Messianic hope, or the Persian and 
 Parsee conceptions of an unseen world which the course 
 
322 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 of history had grafted on Judaism, or the Hellenistic 
 speculation with which the Jewish Dispersion was every- 
 where penetrated, or the mere natural love of marvel 
 which every populace possesses, and more especially an 
 Eastern populace — when he watches these forces either 
 shaping the consciousness of Jesus, or dictating the forms 
 of belief and legend and dogma in which his followers 
 cast the love and loyalty roused by a great personality — 
 this also he could have foretold, this also is the most natu- 
 ral thing in the world. For to realize the necessity, the 
 inevitableness, of these three features in the story of 
 Christianity, he has only to look out on the general his- 
 tory of religions, of miracle, of sacred biography, of in- 
 spired books, to see the same forces and the same pro- 
 cesses repeating themselves all over the religious field. 
 
 " So in the same way with the penetration and success 
 of Christianity- — the ' moral miracle,' which is to convince 
 us of Christian dogma, when the appeal to physical mira- 
 cle fails. To the historian there is no miracle, moral or 
 physical, in the matter, any more than there is in the rise 
 of Buddhism or of any other of those vast religious sys- 
 tems with which the soil of history is strewed. He sees 
 the fuel of a great ethical and spiritual movement, long 
 in. preparation from many sides, kindled into flame by 
 that spark of a great personality — a life of genius, a tragic 
 death. He sees the movement shaping itself to the po- 
 etry, myth, and philosophy already existing when it 
 began, he sees it producing a new literature, instinct with 
 a new passion, simplicity, and feeling. He watches it, 
 as time goes on, appropriating the strength of Roman in- 
 stitutions, the subtleties of Greek thought, and, although 
 in every religious history, nay in every individual history, 
 there remain puzzles and complexities which belong to 
 
TEE NEW REFORMATION. 323 
 
 the mysteries of the human organization, and which no 
 critical process however sympathetic can ^yer completely 
 fathom, still at the end the Christian problem is nearer a 
 detailed solution for him than some others of the great 
 religious problems of the world. How much harder for 
 a European really to understand the vast spread and em- 
 pire of Buddhism, its first rise, its tenacious hold on 
 human life ! 
 
 " But this relatively full understanding of the Chris- 
 tian problem is only reached by a vigilant maintenance 
 of that lookout over the whole religious field of which I 
 spoke just now. Only so can the historian keep his in- 
 stinct sharp, his judgment clear. It is this constant use 
 indeed of the comparative method which distinguishes 
 him from the orthodox critic, which divides, say a Ger- 
 man like Harnack or BLausrath from an Englishman like 
 Westcott. The German is perpetually bringing into con- 
 nection and relation ; the Englishman, like Westcott, on 
 the contrary, under the influence of Mansel's doctrine of 
 6 affection,' works throughout from an isolation, from the 
 perpetual assumption of a special case. The first method 
 is throughout scientific. The second has nothing to do 
 with science. It has its own justification, no doubt, but 
 it must not assume a name that does not belong to it." 
 
 " Now I see, Merriman, how little you really under- 
 stand the literature you profess to judge ! " cried Konalds ; 
 " as if Westcott, who knows everything, and is forever 
 bringing Christianity into relation with the forces about 
 it, can be accused of isolating it ! A passage from the 
 ' Gospel of the Resurrection ' comes into my mind at the 
 moment which is conclusive : ' Christianity is not an iso- 
 lated system, but the result of a long preparation — Christi- 
 anity can not be regarded alone and isolated from its ante- 
 
324 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 cedents. To attempt to separate Christianity from Juda- 
 ism and Hellenism is not to interpret Christianity, but to 
 construct a new religion ' — and so on. What can be more 
 clear?" 
 
 " I speak from a knowledge of Westcott' s books," said 
 Merriman, quietly. "The passages you quote concern 
 the moral and philosophical phenomena of Christianity — 
 I was speaking of the miraculous phenomena. No scholar 
 of any eminence, whatever might have been the case fifty 
 years ago, could at the present moment discuss the specu- 
 lation and ethics of early Christendom without reference 
 to surrounding conditions. So much the progress of 
 knowledge has made impossible. But the procedure 
 which the Christian apologist can not maintain in the 
 field of ideas he still maintains in the field of miracle and 
 event. Do you find Westcott seriously sifting and com- 
 paring the narratives of healing, of rising from the dead, 
 of visions, and so on, which meet us in the New Testa- 
 ment, by the help of narratives of a similar kind to be 
 found either in contemporary or later documents, of the 
 materials offered by the history of other religions or of 
 other periods of Christianity? And if the attempt is 
 anywhere made, do you not feel all through that it is 
 unreal, that the speaker's mind is made up, to begin with, 
 under the influence of ' that affection which is part of 
 insight,' and that he starts his history from an assumption 
 which has nothing to do with history ? No ! "Westcott 
 is an eclectic, or a schoolman, of the most delicate, inter- 
 esting, and attractive type possible ; but his great learning 
 is for him not an instrument and means of conviction, it 
 is a mere adornment of it." 
 
 There was a long pause, which Eon aids at last broke, 
 looking at his friend with emotion in every feature. 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 325 
 
 "And the result of it all, Merriman, for Germany 
 and for yourself ? Is Germany the better or the nobler 
 for all her speculation ? Are you the happier ? " 
 
 Merriman thought awhile as he stood leaning over 
 the fire ; then he said : " Germany is in a religious state 
 very difficult to understand, and the future of which is 
 very difficult to forecast. To my mind, the chief evils of 
 it come from that fierce reaction after '48, which pre- 
 vented the convictions of liberal theology from mingling 
 with the life and institutions of the people. Eeligion 
 was for years made a question of politics and bureaucracy ; 
 and though the freedom of teaching was never seriously 
 interfered with, the Church, which was for a long time 
 the tool of political conservatism, organized itself against 
 the liberal theological faculties, and the result has been 
 a divorce between common life and speculative belief 
 which affects the greater part of the cultivated class. The 
 destructive forces of scientific theology have made them 
 indifferent to dogma and formulae, and reaction in Church 
 and State has made it impossible for the new spiritual 
 conceptions which belong to that theology to find new 
 forms of religious action and expression." 
 
 "Religious action!" said Konalds, bitterly. "What 
 religion is possible to men who regard Christ as a good 
 man with mistaken notions on many points, and God as 
 an open question ? " 
 
 " For me at the present moment," replied Merriman, 
 with a singular gentleness, and showing in the whole ex- 
 pression of eye and feature, as he involuntarily moved 
 nearer to his companion, a wish to soothe pain, a yearn- 
 ing to meet feeling with feeling, " that is not the point. 
 The point is, What religion is possible to men, for whom 
 God is the only reality, and Jesus that friend of God and 
 
326 AGNOSTICISM AJSTB CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 man, in whom, through, all human and necessary imper- 
 fection, they see the natural leader of their inmost life, 
 the symbol of those religious forces in man which are 
 primitive, essential, and universal ? " 
 
 " What can a mere man, however good and eminent, 
 matter to me," asked Ronalds, impatiently, "eighteen 
 centuries after his death? The idea that Christianity 
 can be reconstructed on any such basis is the merest 
 dream." 
 
 " Then, if so, history is realizing a dream ! For 
 while you and those who think with you, Eonalds, are 
 discussing whether a certain combination is possible, that 
 combination is slowly and silently establishing itself in 
 human life all about you ! You dispute and debate — 
 solvitur ambulando. All over the world, in quiet Ger- 
 man towns, in Holland, in the circles which represent 
 some of the best life of France, in large sections of Scotch 
 and English life, and in large sections of American life, 
 these ideas which you ridicule as chimerical, are being 
 carried day by day into action, tried by all the tests which 
 evil and pain can apply, and proving their power to help, 
 inspire, and console human beings. All round us" — 
 and the speaker drew himself up, an indescribable air of 
 energy and hope pervading look and frame — " all round 
 us I feel the New Reformation preparing, struggling into 
 utterance and being ! It is the product, the compromise 
 of two forces, the scientific and the religious. In the 
 English Reformed Church of the future, to which the 
 Church of England and the Church of Scotland, the 
 Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Independents, 
 and the Unitarians will all contribute, and wherein the 
 Liberal forces now rising in each body will ultimately 
 coalesce, science will find the religion with which, as it 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 327 
 
 has long since declared, through its wisest mouths, it has 
 no rightful quarrel, and religion will find the science 
 which belongs to it and which it needs. Ah ! but when, 
 when f " — and the tone changed to one of yearning and 
 passion. " It is close upon us — it is prepared by all the 
 forces of history and mind — its rise sooner or later is 
 inevitable. But one has but the one life, and the years 
 go by. Meanwhile the men whose hearts and heads are 
 with us, who are our natural leaders, cling to systems 
 which are for others, not for them, in which their faith 
 is gone, and where their power is wasted, preaching a 
 twofold doctrine — one for the elite and one for the mul- 
 titude — and so ignoring all the teachings of history as to 
 the sources and conditions of the religious life." 
 
 He stopped, a deep momentary depression stealing 
 over the face and attitude, which ten minutes before had 
 expressed such illimitable hope. Again Ronalds put up 
 his hand and laid it lingeringly on the arm beside him. 
 
 " And yourself, Merriman ? " 
 
 Merriman looked down into the anxious, friendly eyes, 
 the moved countenance, and his own aspect gradually 
 cleared. He spoke with a grave and mild solemnity as 
 though making a confession of faith : 
 
 " I am content, Eonalds — inwardly more at rest than 
 for years. This study of mine, which at first seemed to 
 have swept away all, has given me back much. God — 
 though I can find no names for Him — is more real, more 
 present to me than ever before. And when, in the inter- 
 vals of my law-work, I go back to my favorite books, it 
 seems to me that I live with Jesus, beside Gennesareth, 
 or in the streets of Jerusalem, as I never lived with him 
 in the old days, when you and I were Anglicans together. 
 I realize his historical limitations, and the more present 
 
328 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 they are to me, the more my heart turns to him, the 
 more he means to me, and the more ready I am to go out 
 into that world of the poor and helpless he lost his life 
 for, with the thought of him warm within me. I do not 
 put him alone, on any non-natural pinnacle ; but history, 
 led by the blind and yet divine instinct of the race, has 
 lifted this life from the mass of lives, and in it we Euro- 
 peans see certain ethical and spiritual essentials concen- 
 trated and embodied, as we see the essentials of poetry 
 and art and knowledge concentrated and embodied in 
 other lives. And because ethical and spiritual things are 
 more vital to us than art and knowledge, this life is more 
 vital to us than those. Many others may have possessed 
 the qualities of Jesus, or of Buddha, but circumstance 
 and history have in each case decided as to the relative 
 worth of the particular story, the particular inspiration, 
 for the world in which it arose, in comparison with other 
 stories or other inspirations ; and amid the difficulties of 
 existence, the modern European who persists in ignoring 
 the practical value of this exquisite Christian inheritance 
 of ours, or the Buddhist who should as yet look outside 
 his own faith for the materials of a more rational religious 
 development, is to my mind merely wasteful and impa- 
 tient. We must submit to the education of God — the 
 revolt against miraculous belief is becoming now not so 
 much a revolt of reason as a revolt of conscience and faith 
 — but we must keep firm hold all the while of that vast 
 heritage of feeling which goes back, after all, through all 
 the overgrowths of dream and speculation, to that strong- 
 est of all the forces of human life — the love of man for 
 man, the trust of the lower soul in the higher, the hope 
 and the faith which the leader and the hero kindles amid 
 the masses ! " 
 
THE NEW REFORMATION. 329 
 
 The two men remained silent awhile, Then Eonalds 
 rose from his chair and grasped his companion's hand. 
 
 " We are nearer than we seemed half an hour ago," he 
 said. 
 
 "And we shall come nearer jet," said Merriman, 
 smiling. 
 
 Konalds shook his head, stayed chatting awhile on 
 indifferent subjects, and went." 
 
 THE end. 
 
D. APPLETON & 00/8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 WHAT IS THE CHURCH? Or, PLAIN INSTRUCTION 
 ABOUT THE CHURCH, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLAND; HER 
 DOCTRINE, HER DISCIPLINE, HER OFFICE. By R. I. Wood- 
 
 house, M. A. With Notes and a Supplementary Chapter on the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church in the United States, by J. A. Spencer, 
 S. T. D. 18mo. Paper, 40 cents. 
 
 In this convenient manual a great deal of information is crowded into a 
 small space, and conveyed in a singularly clear and entertaining manner 
 by the catechetical method. 
 
 A COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, 
 
 MAINLY ABRIDGED FROM DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S DIC- 
 TIONARY OF THE BIBLE. With Important Additions and 
 Improvements. Edited by Rev. S. W. Barnum, M. A. Embellished 
 with many hundred Woodcuts, including Maps, Plans of Cities, 
 Illustrations of Manners, Customs, etc. Complete in one vol. Large 
 8vo. Cloth, $5.00 ; sheep, $6.00 ; half morocco, $1.50. 
 
 Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, published in 1860-63, and con- 
 taining, in its three large octavo volumes, nearly 3,200 pages, is a work 
 of acknowledged excellence ; but its size, cost, and scholarly character, 
 must prevent any extensive circulation of it among the great mass of those 
 who desire and need a Dictionary of the Bible. The " Comprehensive 
 Dictionary," on which nearly two years of editorial labor have already been 
 expended, owes its origin to a settled conviction, on the part of the editor 
 and publishers, of the need of such a modified abridgment of the original 
 work as should make the results of Modern scholarship generally accessible. 
 
 STUDENT'S CONCORDANCE TO THE REVISED VERSION 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Compiled upon an Original Plan, 
 showing all the Changes in all Words referred to. With Appendices 
 of the Chief Authorized Words and Passages omitted in the Revision, 
 of Rare and Disused Words, and a List of Readings and Render- 
 ings preferred by the American Committee. Small 4to. Cloth, 
 $2.50. 
 
 11 A concordance of the revised version, to answer its end, should in a 
 measure comprise both versions— to the extent, at least, of affording some 
 clew to the changed words. This has been done in the present work, by 
 giving under each word the words which in any text of the new version 
 are substituted for the same word in the old." — Extract from Preface. 
 
 New York : D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. 
 
D. APPLETON & CO/8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE LIFE AND WORDS OF CHRIST. By Cunningham 
 
 Geikie, D. D. A new and cheap edition, printed from the same 
 
 stereotype plates as the fine illustrated edition. Complete in one 
 
 vol., 8vo, 1,258 pages. Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 This is the only cheap edition of Geikie's Life of Christ that contains 
 
 the copious notes of the author, the marginal references, and an index. 
 
 " A work of the highest rank, breathing the spirit of true faith in Christ." — 
 Dr. Delitzsch, the Commentator. 
 
 " A most valuable addition to sacred literature."— A. N. Littlejohn, D. D., 
 Bishop of Long Island. 
 
 THE LIFE A1VD WORDS OF CHRIST. By Cunningham 
 Geikie, D. D. New revised edition. In two vols., 12mo. Cloth, $2.50. 
 A new edition of this eminently popular Life of Christ, in a more con- 
 venient form and at a comparatively low price. 
 
 "We anticipate for it an extensive circulation, to which it is entitled for its 
 substantial worth, its erudition, its brilliant style, and its fervent devotion."— 
 The Kev. Dr. Adams, President of Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 "A great and noble work, rich in information, eloquent and scholarly in 
 etyle, earnestly devout in feeling."— London Literary World. 
 
 " We think Dr. Geikie has caught a new ray from the ' Mountain of Light,' 
 and has added a new page to our Christology which many will delight to read." 
 — Evangelist. 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PRIMERS. Now 
 
 complete. 
 Vol. I. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE APOLOGISTS 
 OF THE SECOND CENTURY, a. d. 95-180. Cloth. 
 Vol. II. THE FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, a. d. 180- 
 
 325. Cloth. 
 Vol. III. THE POST-NICENE GREEK FATHERS, a. d. 325-750. 
 
 18mo. Cloth. 
 Vol. IV. THE POST-NICENE LATIN FATHERS, a. d. 325-590. 
 By the Rev. George A. Jackson. Edited by Professor George 
 Park Fisher, D. D. 18mo, cloth, 60 cents each; or put up in sets 
 in box, $2.40. 
 
 The "Early Christian Literature Primers" embody, in a few small and in- 
 expensive volumes, the substance of the characteristic works of the great Fathers 
 of the Church. . . . Nearly every known author of the period is mentioned, 
 and his place pointed out. 
 
 "The numbers of this series are so unpretentious that they micht easily fail 
 to receive the attention they deserve. They are done very well indeed, and 
 really give a better introduction to the inner Christian life of the times and the 
 real state of Christian opinion than could be obtained from a history."— Inde- 
 pendent. 
 
 • " The work shows a great amount of careful study, and excellent judgment and 
 candor."— Professor E. C. Smyth, D.D., Andover TJieological Seminary (Con- 
 gregational). 
 
 "I commend yonr plan heartily."— Professor T. W. Coit, Berkeley Divinity 
 School, Middletown (Episcopal). 
 
 New York : D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. 
 
D. APPLETON & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Professor JOSEPH LE CONTE'S WORKS. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND ITS RELATION TO RELIGIOUS 
 THOUGHT. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D., Professor of Geology 
 and Natural History in the University of California. With numer- 
 ous Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 " Much, very much has heen written, especially on the nature and the evi- 
 dences of evolution, but the literature is so voluminous, much of it so fragment- 
 ary, and most of it so technical, that even very intelligent persons have still very 
 vague ideas on the subject. I have attempted to give (1) a very concise account 
 of what we mean by evolution, (2) an outline of the evidences of its truth drawn 
 from many different sources, and (3) its relation to fundamental religiousbeliefs." 
 —Extract from Preface. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF GEOLOGY. A Text-book for Colleges and for 
 
 the General Reader. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D. W ith upward 
 
 of 900 Illustrations. New and enlarged edition. 8vo. Cloth, $4.00. 
 
 " Besides preparing a comprehensive text-book, suited to present demands, 
 Professor Le Conte has given us a volume of great value as an exposition of the 
 subject, thoroughly up to date. The examples and applications of the work are 
 almost entirely derived from this country, so that it may be properly considered 
 an American geology. We can commend this work without qualification to all 
 who desire an intelligent acquaintance with geological science, as fresh, lucid, 
 full, authentic, the result of devoted study and of long experience in teaching." 
 —Popular Science Monthly. 
 
 RELIGION AND SCIENCE. A Series of Sunday Lectures on the 
 
 Relation of Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths revealed 
 
 in Nature and Scripture. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D. 12mo. 
 
 Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 " We commend the book cordially to the regard of all who are interested in 
 whatever pertains to the discussion of these grave questions, and especially to 
 those who desire to examine closely the strong foundations on which the Chris- 
 tian faith is reared.' 1 — Boston Journal. 
 
 SIGHT : An Exposition of the Principles of Monocular and Binocular 
 
 Vision. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D. With Illustrations. I2mo. 
 
 Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 " Professor Le Conte has long been known as an original investigator in this 
 department ; all that he gives us is treated with a master-hand. It is pleasant to 
 find an American book that can rank with the very best of foreign books on 
 this subject.' 1 — The Nation. 
 
 COMPEND OF GEOLOGY. By Joseph Le Conte, LL. D. 12ma 
 Cloth, $1.40. 
 
 New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. 
 
D. APPLETON & CO/8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THOMAS H. HUXLEY'S WORKS. 
 
 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, AND OTHER ESSAYS. 12mo. 
 Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 THE CRAYFISH: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 
 OF ZOOLOGY. With 82 Illustrations. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75. 
 
 SCIENCE PRIMERS : INTRODUCTORY. ISmo. Flexible cloth, 
 45 cents. 
 
 MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE. 12mo. Cloth, $1.25. 
 
 ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 12mo. Cloth, $1.00. 
 
 MORE CRITICISMS ON DARWIN, AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
 NIHILISM. 12mo. Limp cloth, 50 cents. 
 
 MANUAL OF THE ANATOMY OF VERTEBRATED 
 ANIMALS. Illustrated. 12mo. Cloth, $2.50. 
 
 MANUAL OF THE ANATOMY OF INVERTEBRATED 
 ANIMALS. 12mo. Cloth, $2.50. 
 
 LAY SERMONS, ADDRESSES, AND REVIEWS. 12mo. 
 
 Cloth, $1.75. 
 
 CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 AMERICAN ADDRESSES; WITH A LECTURE ON THE 
 
 STUDY OF BIOLOGY. 12ino. Cloth, $1.25. 
 
 PHYSIOGRAPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF 
 NATURE. With Illustrations and Colored Plates. 12mo. Cloth, 
 
 $2.50. 
 
 HUXLEY AND YOUMANS'S ELEMENTS OF PHYSIOL- 
 OGY AND HYGIENE. By T. H. Huxley and W. J. Youmans. 
 
 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 Now York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3. * « Bond Street. 
 
D. APPLETON & 00/8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 SIR JOHN LUBBOCK'S (Bart.) WORKS. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION AND THE PRIML. 
 TIVE CONDITION OF MAN, MENTAL AND SOCIAL 
 
 CONDITION OF SAVAGES. Fourth edition, with numerous Ad- 
 ditions. With Illustrations. 8vo. Cloth, $5.00. 
 
 " This interesting work— for it is intensely so in its aim, scope, and the abil- 
 ity of its author— treats of what the scientists denominate anthropology, or the 
 natural history of the hnman species ; the complete science of man, body, and 
 soul, including sex, temperament, race, civilization, etc." — Providence Press. 
 
 PREHISTORIC TIMES, AS ILLUSTRATED BY ANCIENT 
 
 REMAINS AND THE MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF MODERN 
 
 SAVAGES. Illustrated. 8vo. Cloth, $5.00. 
 
 "This is, perhaps, the best summary of evidence now in our possession con- 
 cerning the general character of prehisto ric times. The Bronze Age, The Stone 
 Age, The Tumuli, The Lake Inhabitants of Switzerland, Tlie Shell Mounds, The 
 Cave Man, and The Antiquity of Man, are the titles of the mo6t important chap- 
 ters."— Dr. C. K. Adams's Manual of Historical Literature. 
 
 ANTS, BEES, AND WASPS. A Record of Observations on the 
 
 Habits of the Social Hymenoptera. With Colored Plates. 12mo. 
 
 Cloth, $2.00. 
 
 "This volume contains the record of various experiments made with ants, 
 bees, and wasps during the last ten years, with a view to test their mental con- 
 dition and powers of sense. The author has carefully watched and marked par- 
 ticular insects, and has had their nests under observation for long periods— one 
 of his ants' nests having been under constant inspection ever since 1874. His 
 observations are made principally upon ants, because they show more power and 
 flexibility of mind ; and the value of his studies is that they belong to the de- 
 partment of original research." 
 
 ON THE SENSES, INSTINCTS, AND INTELLIGENCE 
 
 OF ANIMALS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INSECTS. 
 11 International Scientific Series." With over One Hundred Illustra- 
 tions. 12mo. Cloth, $1.75. 
 
 The author has here collected some of his recent observations on the senses 
 and intelligence of animals, and especially of insects, and has attempted to give, 
 very briefly, some idea of the organs of sense, commencing in each case with 
 those of man himself. 
 
 THE PLEASURES OF LIFE. 12mo. Cloth, 50 cents ; paper, 
 25 cents. 
 
 CONTENTS.— -The Duty of Happiness. The Happiness or Duty. A 
 Song of Books. The Choice op Books. The Blessing op Friends. The 
 Value op Time. The Pleasures op Travel. The Pleasures op Home. 
 Science. Education. 
 
 New York : D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street. 
 
D. APPLETON & CO/8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 ALEXANDER BAIN'S WORKS. 
 
 THE SENSES AND THE INTELLECT. By Alexander 
 Bain. LL. D., Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. 
 8vo. Cloth, $5.00. 
 
 The object of this treatise is to give a full and systematic account of two 
 principal divisions of the science of mind— the senses and the intellect. The 
 value of the third edition of the work is greatly enhanced by an account of the 
 psychology of Aristotle, which has been contributed by Mr. Grote. 
 
 THE EMOTIONS AND THE WILL. By Alexander Bain, 
 LL. D. 8vo. Cloth, $5.00. 
 
 The present publication is a sequel to the former one on " The Senses and the 
 Intellect," and completes a systematic exposition of the human mind. 
 
 MENTAL SCIENCE. A Compendium of Psychology and the His. 
 tory of Philosophy. Designed as a Text-book for High-Schools and 
 Colleges. By Alexander Bain, LL. D. 12mo. Cloth, leather 
 back, $1.50. 
 
 The present volume is an abstract of two voluminous works, " The Senses 
 and the Intellect" and "The Emotions and the Will," and presents in a com- 
 pressed and lucid form the views which are there more extensively elaborated. 
 
 MORAL SCIENCE. A Compendium of Ethics. By Alexander 
 Bain, LL. D. 12 mo. Cloth, leather back, $1.50. 
 
 The present dissertation falls under two divisions. The first division, en- 
 titled The Theory of Ethics, gives an account of the questions or points brought 
 into discussion, and handles at length the two of greatest prominence, the Ethical 
 Standard and the Moral Faculty. The second division— on the Ethical Systems 
 —is a full detail of all the systems, ancient and modern. 
 
 MIND AND BODY. Theories of their Relations. By Alexander 
 Bain, LL. D. 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 
 "A forcible statement of the connection between mind and body, studying 
 their subtile interworkings by the light of the most recent physiological investi 
 gation s . " — Christian Register. 
 
 LOGIC, DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE. By Alexander 
 Bain, LL. D. Revised edition. 12mo. Cloth, leather back, $2.00. 
 
 EDUCATION AS A SCIENCE. By Alexander Bain, LL.D. 
 12mo. Cloth, $1.75. 
 
 ENGLISH COMPOSITION AND RHETORIC. Enlarged 
 edition. Part I. Intellectual Elements of Style. By Alexander 
 Bain, LL.D., Emeritus Professor of Logic in the University of 
 Aberdeen. 12mo. Cloth, leather back, $1.50. 
 
 ON TEACHING ENGLISH. With Detailed Examples and an 
 Inquiry into the Definition of Poetry. By Alexander Bain, LL. D. 
 12mo. Cloth, $1.25. 
 
 PRACTICAL ESSAYS. By Alexander Bain, LL.D. 12mo. 
 Cloth, $1.50. 
 
 New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 022 208 156 7 
 
 Contains a biographical sketch of every person eminent in American history, 
 politics, literature, art, science, divinity, the professions, commerce, inven^ 
 tion, etc. Complete in six royal octavo volumes of about 800 pages each. 
 Sold only by subscription. Circulars and specimen pages sent on appli- 
 
 D. APPLETON & CO,, Publishers, New York,