Christianity and agnosticism : a controversy

THE HiniBOLDT LIBRARY SERIES.

CHRISTIANITY
AND AGNOSTICISM

A CONTROVERSY

CONSISTING OF PAPERS BY

HENRY WAGE. D.D., PROF. THOS. H. HUXLEY

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH,
W. H. MALLOCK, MRS. HUMPHRY WARD.

NEW YORK:

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO.,
28 LAFAYETTE PLACE.

CONTENTS.

I. ON AGNOSTICISM. By HENRY WACE, D. D., Prebendary of St. Paul s

Cathedral; Principal of King s College, London 5

(Read at the Manchester Church Congress, 1889.)

II. AGNOSTICISM. By Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY

(From " The Nineteenth Century," February, 1889.)

III. AGNOSTICISM. A Reply to Prof. HUXLEY. By HENRY WACE, D. D. ... 30

(From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.

IV. AGNOSTICISM. By W. C. MAGEE, D. D., Bishop of Peterborough 44

(From " The Nineteenth Century" March, 1889.)

V. AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. By Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY 46,

(From " The Nineteenth Century, " April. 1889.)

VI. CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. By HENRY WACE, D. D 66

(From " The Nineteenth Century" May, 1889.)

VII. AN EXPLANATION TO PROF. HUXLEY. By W. C. MAGEE, D.D.,

Bishop of Peterborough 83

(From " The Nineteenth Century," May, 1889.)

VIII. THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. By Prof.

THOMAS H. HUXLEY 84

(From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.)

:X. AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. By Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY. 96

(From " The Nineteenth Century," June, 1889.)

X. " COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM." A WORD WITH PROF. HUXLEY.

By W. H. MALLOCK 119

(From " The Fortnightly Review," April, 1889.)

XI. THE NEW REFORMATION. By Mrs. HUMPHRY WARD 140

(From " The Nineteenth Century," March, 1889.)

I.

ON AGNOSTICISM.

A PAPER READ 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 "Dictionary of the
English Language," we are told that " an agnostic is one who holds
that the existence of anything beyond 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 suggested 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. u Agnostic," it is
further said, in a passage quoted from the " Spectator" of June 11,
1876, "was the name demanded by Prof. Huxley for those who dis
claimed 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 honored
bishop of this diocese is quoted as saying, in the " Manchester
Guardian 3 in 1880, that "the agnostic neither denied nor affirmed
God. He simply put him on one side." The,, designation was sug
gested, therefore, for the purpose of avoiding a direct denial of beliefs
respecting 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 ques
tion of abstract philosophy respecting the limits of our natural capaci
ties. 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 involves a
mere evasion. A Christian Catechism says : " First, I learn 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

A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRISTIA NITY.

scientific theory, meaning that he is strongly of opinion that it is
true ; or, in still looser language, 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 opinion; and upon that opinion, in defiance of
other opinions, even an emperor may have to stake his life. Simi
larly, from what is known of the proceedings in Parliament respecting
the Manchester Ship-Canal, it may be presumed that engineers were
not unanimous as to the possibilities and advantages of that under
taking; but Manchester men were content to act upon the best
opinion, and to stake fortunes on their belief in it. However, it may
be sufficient to have just alluded to the old and unanswered, conten
tion 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,
according 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 decla
rations and assurances of Jesus 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 declarations, and that our acceptance
of them depends on personal trust. Why do we believe that Jesus
Christ redeemed 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 miracles afford us.
as St. Paul says, assurance of his divine mission. But for our knowl
edge 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 decide 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 irrelevant. His difference from Christians
lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that

ON A GNOSTICISM. 7

lie 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, per
haps, 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 in Jesus Christ. It is,
indeed, an awful thing to say. But even men who are not conscious
of all it involves shrink from the ungraciousness, if from nothing
more, of treating the beliefs inseparably 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 respectful 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 teaching on these subjects. 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 he died on the cross, in the most intense
sense of filial relation to his Father in heaven, and that he bore testi
mony 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 unveiled 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 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 sae
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, agnos
ticism has been impossible 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 agnostic coolly says he knows noth
ing. An agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to
God must not only refuse belief to our Lord s most undoubted teach
ing, 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 agnos
tics rather than infidels ; but I know not whether this cool and

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

supercilious disregard of that solemn teaching, and of that sacred life
and death, be not more offensive than the downright denials which
look their responsibility boldly in the face, and say, not only that
they do not know, but that they do not believe. This question of
a 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 nave 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 disregard
ing the greatest force with which it has to contend. While philos
ophers are arguing as to the abstract capacities of human thought, as
though our Lord had never lived and died, he himself is still speak
ing ; his words, as recorded by his apostles and evangelists, are still
echoing over human hearts, touching their inmost affections, appeal
ing to their deepest needs, commanding their profoundest trust, and
awakening in them an apprehension of that divine relation and those
unseen realities in which their spirits live. While agnostics are
committing the enormous scientific as well as moral blunder of con
sidering the relations 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 knowledge, his word is still
heard, in penetrating and comfortable 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 considerations 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. Philos
ophers 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 con
tent 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 relation 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

ON A GNOSTICISM. 9

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 philosophies at Corinth : " I, brethren, when
I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,
declaring unto you the testimony of God ; for I determined 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 exercised the orators of the Church Con
gress 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 prophetical 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, consid
ering 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 questioned 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 agnosticism
before the Church Congress, took a short and easy way of settling the
business :

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 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, per-
hapg. carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, and ought to be,
an unpleasant 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 customary courtesy and self-
respect as to speak of " cowardly agnosticism " (p. 262).

So much of Dr. Wace s address either explicitly or implicitly con
cerns 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
acknowledged 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 attaining 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 future. I
can not think this description happy either in form or substance, but

* See the Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester," October, 1888, pp. 253,

10 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

for the present it may pass. Dr. Wace continues, that it is not " his
difference from Christians." 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 professional theologian, and I proceed to Dr. Wace s next propo
sition.

The real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic " does not
believe the authority 1 on which "these things : are stated, which
authority is Jesus 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
" infidel." There is an attractive simplicity about this solution of the
problem; and it has that advantage of being somewhat offensive to
the persons attacked, which is so dear to the Jess refined sort of con
troversialist. The agnostic says, "I can not find good evidence that
so and so is true." " 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. 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! ;i at Waterloo, I do not think that even Dr.
Wace would accuse me of disbelieving 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.

Now, the question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a
scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no other methods
than those practiced by the historian and the literary critic. It is a
problem of immense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best
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 destroy 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 asurances
of Jesus Christ and his apostles" (loc. 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 assurances 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

* 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 thought I knew M. Kenan 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. Kenan 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. Kenan were to retract and do penance in Notre
Dame to-morrow for any contributions to Biblical criticism that mav be specially his property, the
main results of that criticism as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volk-
mar, for example, would not be sensibly affected.

AGNOSTICISM. 11

world/ must be trust and faith in falsehood. No man who has
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
examples 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 question of the day is so com
pletely, as the author of "Robert Elsmere" says, the value of testi
mony^ that I 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 narrater intends to
convey to his readers his own conviction 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 manifest itself.

On the other hand, everything that I know of physiological 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 anthro
pology leads me to think that the belief in demons and demonical
possession is a mere survival of a once universal superstition, and that
its persistence at the present time is pretty much in the inverse ratio
of the general instruction, intelligence, 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 seven
teenth 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 ecclesiastics, to the most horrible perse
cutions and judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent
men, women, 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 declara
tion 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 declare, as I have no hesita
tion in doing, that I utterly disbelieve in the existence of "unclean

* Here, as always, the revised version is cited.

12 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

spirits/ and, consequently, in the possibility of their " coming forth "
out of a man, I suppose that Dr. Wace will tell me I am disregarding
the "testimony of our Lord " (loc. cit. 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 othodox, Dr. Alexander
remarks, in an editorial note to the article " Demoniacs," in the " Bib
lical Cyclopaedia" (vol. i, p. 664, note):

... On the lowest grounds on which our Lord and his apoftlee can he placed, they mnt, at
least, he regarded as honest men. Now, though honest speech does not require that words should
be u>ed always and only in their etymological sense, it does require that they should not he used
so as to affirm what the speaker knows to be false. While, therefore, our Lord aud his apostles
might use the word daijuovi^eadai, or the phrase oai/udviov e%etv, as a popular description of
certain diseases, without giving in to the belief which lay at the tource of such a mode of expres
sion, they could not speak of demons entering into a man. or being cast out of him, without pledg
ing themselves to the belief of an actual possession of the man by the demons (Campbell, "Prel.
Dies.," vi, 1, 10). If, consequently, 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 confirms 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 version 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 speculative 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 current among his contemporaries. If the
story is true, the mediaeval theory of the invisible world may be, and
probably is, quite correct; and the witch-finders, from Sprenger 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 influ
ences concur in warning us, at our peril, against accepting the belief
without the most careful 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 import as this is untrust
worthy, 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

* 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 mutter is contained, is enabled to judge whether
it is to be taken aw smewx or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New
Testament, less precise and specific than that the call of Abraham, also accepted as true therein ?
By what mark doe" the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some
very curious scientific problems, show that it IB meant merely for edification, while the story of the-

A GWOSTICIS^L 13

this 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 contemporaries 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
hypothesis.

The theory of life of an average mediaeval Christian was as different
from that of an average nineteenth-century Englishman as that of a
West-African negro is now in these respects. The modern world is
slowly, but surely, shaking off these and other monstrous survivals of
savage delusions, and whatever happens, it will not return to that
wallowing in the mire. Until the contrary is proved, I venture to
doubt whether, at this present moment, 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 compiled the
gospel biographies and disbelieving the Master, whom they, simple
souls, thought to honor by preserving 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 mere scholarship can do has been done),
with the application thereto of the commonest canons of common
sense, is needful to enable us to make a choice between its horns. It
is hardly doubtful that the story, as told in the first Gospel, is merely
a version of that told in the second and third. Nevertheless, the dis
crepancies 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 criti
cism until the present day the evidence against the long-cherished
notion that the three synoptic gospels are the works of three inde
pendent authors, each prompted by divine inspiration, has steadily
accumulated, until, at the present time, there is no yisible escape from
the conclusion that each of the three is a compilation consisting of a
groundwork common to all three the threefold tradition; and of a
superstructure, consisting, firstly, of matter common to it with one of
the others, and, secondly, of matter special to each. The use of the
term " groundwork and "superstructure* by no means implies
that the latter must be of later date than the former. On the con
trary, some parts of it may be, and probably are, older than some parts
of the groundwork.*

The story of the Gadarene swine belongs to the groundwork; at
least, the essential part of it, in which the belief in demoniac posses
sion is expressed, does; and therefore the compilers of the first,

inscription of the law o stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true ? If the story of the Fall is
not the true record oT an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology ? Yet the story
of the Fall as directly conflicts 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.

* See, for an admirable diBcnwrion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott s article on the Gospels in
th " Encyclopaedia Britannica " ; and the remarkable monograph by Prof. Volkmar, " Jesus Na/a-
renusund die erste Christliche Zeit" (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these
writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unimpeachable.

14 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

second, and third Gospels, whoever they were, certainly accepted that
belief (which, indeed, was universal among both Jews and pagans at
that time), and attributed it to Jesus.

What, then, do we know about the originator, or originators, of this
groundwork of that threefold edition which all three witnesses (in
Paley s phrase) agree upon that we should allow their mere state
ments 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 iu
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 recorded. 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 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 hesitated 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 instruct
ive. 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,ll." Now, let any reason
able man ask himself this question : If, after an approximative settle
ment of the canon of the New Testament, and even later than the
fourth and fifth centuries, 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 ecclesiastics during several centuries were safe
guarded against error. For, even granting that some books of the
period were inspired, they were certainly few among many; and those
who selected the canonical books, unless they themselves were also
inspired, must be regarded in the light of mere critics, and, from the

* 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 repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation*
that the four Gospels, as they nave come to ue, are the work of unknown writers.

A GNOSTICISM. 15-

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 Iran sens with his " reasons" for
the existence of only four Gospels; and of such calm and dispassion
ate judges as Tertullian, with his " Credo quia impossibile" 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 Apoc
rypha not inconsiderably.

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. It may be said, and with great
justice, that Eginhard s "Life of Charlemagne is none the less
trustworthy because of the astounding revelation of credulity, of lack
of judgment, and even of respect for the eighth commandment, which
he has unconsciously made in the " History of the Translation of the
Blessed Martyrs Marcel 1 in us 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 no man alive
whose witness could be accepted, if the condition 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 indistin
guishable 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 mythopceic faculty
to break out unnoticed. But it is also perfectly true that the
mythopceic 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 mar
velous which is inherent to a greater or less degree in all mankind,
are strongly concerned ; and, when they are involved, to require
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 unreasonably
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 teenies and trichina, which can be

1 6 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRISTIA NITY.

transferred from men to pigs, and vice versa, and which do undoubt
edly produce most diabolical and deadly effects on both. For any
thing I can absolutely prove to the contrary, there may be spiritual
things capable of the same transmigration, with like effects. More
over, 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 considering.

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 testimony, 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 demonology,
ancient and modern, I conceive their evidence on this particular
matter to be ridiculously insufficient to warrant their conclusion.*

After what has been said I do not think that any sensible 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 investigation 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 assur
ance about it, might mark a new epoch in the history of the earth ;
but, study as long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it
been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of Jesus as it

* 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. Remember Goethe s aphorism: "Alles
factische ist schon Theorie. Trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive them
selves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phe
nomena, 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 as it stands, is suspen
sion of judgment. And, on the necessity for even that suspension, reasonable men may differ,
according to their views of probability.

AGNOSTICISM. 17

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 ISS. Cosmas and Damianus? Or can
he be rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic, broken down by
physical pain, of too many mediaeval 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 attrib
uted to him in speech and action is the embroidery of the various
parties into which his followers tended to split themselves 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 business to call
myself an agnostic; that if I am not a Christian 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. It these
are my ancestors, I prefer, with the old Frank, to be with them where-
ever 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 authority is the signification of
that term defined? Is there any doubt that the immediate followers
of Jesus, the " sect of the Nazarenes," were strictly orthodox Jews,
differing 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/ 7 reverenced
alike by Sadducee, Pharisee, and Nazarene? At the famous con
ference 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
promulgated 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 Antioch, grew wider and wider, until
the two types of doctrine 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 Koman 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 followers 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

9

18 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ebionizing heretic by the Roman, Greek, and Protestant Churches!
And, probably, this hearty and unanimous 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 "pillars" of the primitive Hieroso-
lymitan 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 Nazarenes vastly more than even Pauline Christianitv

1*1

did.

But, further than this, I have great difficulty in assuring 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 liturgies, with uncon
scious 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 say
ings of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels, which directly bear on the
question sometimes, apparently, in opposite directions ?

So, if I am asked to call myself an " infidel," I reply, To what
doctrine do yon 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 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 any
where, 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 signification,
has the advantage of being still more " unpleasant " to the persons to
whom it is applied. But, in the name of all that is Hibernian, I ask
the Bishop of Peterborough 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 7 is a reasonable and intelligible
utterance beside that of the man who should declare himself to be an
infidel on the ground of denying his own belief. It may be logically,

AGNOSTICISM. 19

if not ethically, defensible, that a Christian should call a Mohammedan
an infidel, and vice versa ; but, on Dr. Wace s principles, both ought
to call themselves infidels, because each applies 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 university 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 undiscrimi native 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 permitted 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. Iain 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, whose educa
tion had been interrupted, and who, intellectually, 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 u History of Civilization," the other was
Sir William Hamilton s essay "On the Philosophy of the Uncon
ditioned," which I came upon, by chance, in an odd volume of the
" Edinburgh Review." The latter was certainly strange reading for a
boy, and I could not possibly have understood a great deal of it;*
nevertheless, I devoured it with avidity, and it stamped upon my
mind the strong conviction that, on even the most solemn and im
portant 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 answers 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 his
torical reading, which rendered Hamilton and Guizot attractive to
me, has not only filled many lawful leisure hours, and still more

* Yet I mupt somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many years afterward,
when Dean Mansell s Bampton lectures were published, it seemed to me I already knew all that
this eminently agnostic thinker had to tell me.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY

sleepless ones, with the repose of changed mental occupation, but
has not unfrequently 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 limitation 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 enforced, but
unwilling, egotism of this veritable history (especially if his studies
have led him in the same direction), 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 elsewhere :

" The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure
reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon
for the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its delimita
tion ; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of
preventing error." *

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself
whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an
idealist; a Christian or a freethinker 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 in which most of these
good people were agreed was 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 presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.
Like Dante

" Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura," t

but, unlike Dante, I can not add

" Che la diritta via era smarrita." %

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 no
where 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 guidance, 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,

* " Kritik der reinen Vernunft." Edit. Hartenstein, p. 256.

t [In the midway of thie our mortal life
I found me in a gloomy wood astray.]

$ [Gone from the path direct.]

AGNOSTICISM. 21

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 leaving the trap
in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elon
gated 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 satisfaction, the term took ; and when the " Spectator " had
stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable 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 "agnostic" and
" agnosticism"; and it will be observed that it does not quite agree
with the confident assertion of the reverend Principal of King s Col
lege, 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
the Church Congress arises, I am sorry to say, on a question of morality.

"It is, and it ought to be," authoritatively declares this official
representative of Christian ethics, "an unpleasant thing for a man
to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ
(/. c., p. 254).

Whether it is so, depends, I imagine, a good deal on whether the
man was brought up in a Christian household 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 r 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 immoral 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
violations 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 valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without
erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be
admired and cherished. The bravest of soldiers often, and very nat
urally, "feel it unpleasant" to go into action; but a court-martial

* Page 6.

22 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

which did its duty would make short work of the officer who promul
gated the doctrine that his men ought to feel their duty unpleasant.

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
extremly unpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the
encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest
believers in even the worst forms of Christianity are of great practical
advantage to them. What deductions must be made from this gain
on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-
worldliness of logical Christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice,
and all uncharitableness 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 free
dom 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 theological 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 discomforts; they ignore the
fact that the Christianity of the churches is something more than
faith in the ideal personality of Jesus, which they create for them
selves,^??^ 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 doctrine), without due repent
ance 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 everlasting damnation by an immense ma
jority.

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 obviously 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 experience of the past as a safe guide in our deal
ings with the present and the future. From the nature of ratiocina
tion it is obvious that the axioms on which it is based can not be
demonstrated by ratiocination. It is also a trite observation that, in
the business of life, we constantly take the most serious action upon
evidence of an utterly insufficient 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 "substance " stands for " assurance," and "evi-

A GNOSTICISM. 23

dence " for " the proving." The question of the exact meaning of the
two words, VTroaraai? and e/lfj/jof, affords a fine field of discussion 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 pro
found 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 feeling "faith,"
I may have the most absolute faith that a friend has not committed
the crime of which he is accused. 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 present 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 sim
plicity. 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, evidence; 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 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 been adopted on the neg
ative side as to be what the Apostles 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 rigorus
application of a single 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 foundation of the Refor
mation, 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 prin
ciple of Descartes; 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 negatively: 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 uni
verse in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the
general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be
proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow. The only nega
tive fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demon-

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

strable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted
is to have the mind always open 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 predicted.
But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell him that you
had discovered that two and two mtike 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 con&cious 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 lor myself; and I do
not dream of anathematizing and excommunicating 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
latter. " 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, when
ever 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 article.

And now, what is to be said to Mr. Harrison s remarkable deliver
ance "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 the zeal and energy with which he ever and anon galvanizes
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
aecount, of a valiant and load-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 positivist 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 pontiffs 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 agnos
tic 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 Christianity, 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 Religion of
Humanity is accepted by mankind. Well, if that is their fate, they
have time to be cheerful. But let us hear Mr. Harrison s pronounce
ment of their doom :

* Fortnightly Review," January, 1889.

A GNOSTICISM. 25

" Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion, an entirely
negative stage, the point reached by physicists, a purely mental con
clusion, with no relation to things social at all" (p. 154). I am 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?
Was that prince of agnostics, David Hume, particularly imbued with
physical science? Supposing physical science to be non-existent
would not the agnostic principle, applied by the philologist and the
historian, 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 Rome, or the real origin of the Homeric poems, anything but
agnosticism in history and in literature? And if so, how can agnosti
cism be the " mere negation of the physicist" ?

" Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion." No two peo
ple 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 judgement, agnosticism can be said to be a stage in its evolu
tion, 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, agnosticism, as a distinctive faith.
will have spontaneously disappeared (p. 155j.

I can but marvel that such sentences as this, and those already
quoted, should have proceeded from Mr. Harrison s pen. Does he
really mean to suggest that agnostics have a logic peculiar to them
selves? Will he kindly help 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 being a distinc
tive 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.

as a religious philosophy per crests on an almost total ignoring of history and
social evolution (p. 152).

But neither per se nor per aliud has agnosticism (if I know any
thing about it) the least pretension to be a religious 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 investigators.
Our forefathers were quite confident about the existence of Romulus
and Uemus, 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
doctrines 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 eighteeeth and nineteenth
centuries who have continued Simon s work, had any particular
acquaintance with physical science. I have already pointed out that

26 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY

Hume was independent of it. And certainly one of the most potent
influences in the same direction, upon history in the 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 Gos
pels; it is wholly incompetent to furnish demonstrative evidence that
any statement made in these histories is untrue. Indeed, 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 becoming " 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 too 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 developments 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 repealed," I am afraid it
would have made no sort of difference to the result, when their two
thousand unwilling 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 luiictions, 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 permis
sible 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 physical
science, or with the history of philosophy, or of philological and his
torical criticism, which is essential to any one who deaires 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 master. It is only such over-faithfulness which can

AGNOSTICISM. 2?

account for a " strong mind really saturated with the historical
sense" (p. 153) exhibiting the extraordinary forgetfulness of the
historical fact of the existence of David Hume implied by the asser
tion 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 replace 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 hamanity 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 humanity 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 proper sense of the word, his
religion is not only an intelligible, but, I think, a laudable resolu
tion. 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 con
ception of a " wilderness of apes." Surely we are not going back to
the days of paganism, when individual men were deified, and the hard
good sense of a dying Vespasian could prompt the bitter jest, " Ut
puto Deus fio" 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 humanity, 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

28 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

favorable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or of 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 and otherwise persecut
ing 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 indis
putable. 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 voluntarily
selected fetich. The Emperor Julian s project was hopeful, in com
parison with the prospects of the new anthropolatry.

When the historian of religion in the twentieth century is writing
about the nineteenth, I foresee he will say something of this kind :

The most curious and instructive events in the religious history of
the preceding century are the rise and progress of two new sects,
called Mormons and Positivists. 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 Republic, which,
though comparatively insignificant at that time, in territory as in the
number of its citizens, was (as we know from the fragments of the
speeches of its orators which have corne down to us) no less remark
able 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 perfect freedom from all restraints in
thought or speech or deed ; except, to be sure, the beneficent and wise
influence of the majority exerted, in case of need, through an institu
tion known as " tarring and feathering," th e 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 Scriptures," 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 persecutions, Smith was brutally murdered the
Mormon body steadily increased, and became a flourishing commu
nity. But the Mormon practices being objectionable to the majority,
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 eventu
ally 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

AGNOSTICISM. 29

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
community 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 legal
excuse for their acts of violence, inasmuch as the Christian "sodali-
tia" were not licensed, and consequently were, ipso facto, illegal
assemblages. Until, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, 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 department
of knowledge, and with nothing but an amateur 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 proposes 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 imper
fectly comprehended contemporary science with the 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 positivist
controversial writer, were very absurd.

To put the matter briefly, M. Comte, finding Christianity and
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 school
boys make a specter out of a turnip and a tallow candle, behold the
new religion of Humanity complete! 1

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 multitude 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

30 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 given to scold, and other
wise try the patience of the majority.

The history of these sects in the closing years of the century is
hishlv instructive. Mormonism . ,

t, */

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 PROFESS OK HUXLEY.

BY HENRY WAGE, D. D.

IT would hardly be reasonable to complain of Prof. Huxley s delay
in replying to the paper on "Agnosticism " which I read five months
ago, when, at the urgent request of an old friend, I reluctantly con
sented to address 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 rea
sons which have been the occasion of universal regret, he may not have
been equal to literary effort. But, at the same time, it is impossible
not to notice that a writer is at a great advantage in attacking a fugi
tive essay a quarter of a year after it was made public. Such a lapse
of time ought, indeed, to enable him to apprehend distinctly the argu
ment 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 superiority,
should lead him to pay no real attention to the argument he is attack
ing, or should betray him into material misquotation, he may at least
be sure that scarcely any of his readers will care to refer to the orig
inal paper, or will have the opportunity of doing so. I can scarcely
hope that Prof. Huxley s obliging reference to the " Official 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 Promoting Christian Knowl
edge. 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 posi
tion which Prof. Huxley has assailed, with such notice of his argu
ments 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 cf a hospital,
a preachership, 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

AGNOSTICISM. . 31

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 occa
sion 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 relv for the invalidation of his

j

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. 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 agnostic consists in the i act
that they believe those assurances, and that he does not. Prof. Hux
ley s observation, "Are there then any Christians who say that they
know nothing about the unseen world and the future? I was igno
rant of the fact, but I am ready to accept it on the authority of a pro
fessed theologian," is either a quibble, or one of many indications that
he does not recognize the point at issue. I am speaking, as the sen
tence 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 ignorant that it is not
upon such knowledge, but upon supernatural revelation, that Chris
tian belief rests. However, as he goes on to say, my view of " the real
state of the case is that the agnosiic does not believe the authority
on which these things are stated, which authority is Jesus Christ.
He is simply an old-lashioned infidel who is afraid to own to his
right name." The argument has nothing to do with the motive,
whether it is being 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 controver
sialist." I think Prof. Huxley must have forgotten himself and his
own feelings in this observation. There can be no question, of course,
of his belonging himself to the more refined sort of controversialist;
but he has a characteristic fancy for solutions of problems, or state
ments 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 per
sons attacked" that Prof. Huxley should speak in this article of " the
pestilent doctrine on which all the churches have insisted, the honest

AGNOSTICISM AXD CHRISTIANITY.

disbelief" 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 retri
bution as murder or robbery." or that he should say, " Trip in morals
or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or
retraction, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and & plebis
cite of the Christians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds,
would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority."
We have fortunately 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 }: 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 " scientific ethics can
and does declare that the profession of belief n in such narratives as
that of the devils entering a herd of swine, or of the fig-tree that was
blasted for bearing no figs, upon the evidence on which multitudes of
Christians believe it, "is immoral"; and the observation which fol
lowed, 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 insinuations which are somewhat offensive to
the " persons attacked" 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. 7 Ah/ says his adversary, seizing his opportu
nity, then yon declare that Jesus Christ was untruthful, for he said so
and so a very telling method of rousing prejudice." Now that
superior scientific 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 "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 possibil
ities of human knowledge ; and of course an agnostic regards Jesus
Christ as a man. If so, he must necessarily regard Jesus Christ as

AGNOSTICISM. 33

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 unpleasant; and all I have maintained is that
the least unpleasant 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 argument. 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 authority, is
just that which the agnostic finds it most difficult 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 contain
ing the central point of the argument: " It may be asked how far we
can rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord s teaching on these
subjects. 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 prac
tical 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 intense sense of filial relation to his
Father in heaven, and that he bore testimony to that Father s provi
dence, love, and grace toward mankind. The Lord s Prayer affords
sufficient evidence upon these points. If the Sermon on the Mount
alone he added, the whole unseen world, of which the agnostic refuses to
know anything, stands unveiled 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 actions, caring for
them and rewarding them. There you hear of a future judgment ad
ministered by Christ himself, and of a heaven to be hereafter reveaeld,
in ffihich 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 nnthing
of God, or of a future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does not
believe in Jesus Christ."

Prof. Huxley has not one word to say upon this argument, though
the whole case is involved in it. Let us take as an example the illus
tration 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,

3

34 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

and at ? em ! " might be doubted, or positively disproved, and it would
still remain a fact beyond all reasonable doubt that the Duke of Well
ington 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 ac issue, m 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 essential belief
and cardinal teaching. If they do then I am not now contending that
they involve the whote of the Christian creed; I am not arguing, a&
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 uncertainties and possibilities, and stake the whole case of Christian
belief as against agnosticism upon one of the most difficult and mys
terious naratives in the New Testament. I will state my position on
that question presently. 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 varia
tions 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 Reuss 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 French edition of the Bible." What,
then, is the opinion of the critic for whom Prof. Huxley has this
regard? In the volume of his work which "treats of the first three Gos
pels, 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 a 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 historical criticism has a right to
make with respect to the form will in no way diminish this advan
tage." It will be observed that Prof. Reuss thinks, as many good
critics have thought, that the Sermon on the Mount combines various

A GNOSTICISM. 35

t

distinct utterances of onr 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 particular 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 respecting God which an agnostic alleges there is no suffi
cient ground for ? We know something at all events of what his dis
ciples taught; we have authentic original documents, unquestioned
by any of Prof. Huxley s authorities, as to what St. Paul 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 agnosticism from which Prof. Huxley manufactured that
designation. "As I passed by," said St. Paul at Athens, "I found an
altar with this inscription : To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye
ignorantly or in agnosticism worship, Him I declare unto you." An
agnostic withholds his assent from this primary article of the Chris
tian creed; and though Prof. Huxley, in spite of the lack of informa
tion he alleges respecting early Christian teaching, 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 Nicene 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. Keuss
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 by the apostles and their friends, directly after their separation from their
Master. The need of such a return to the past arose naturally from the profound impression
which had been made upon them by the teaching, and still more by the individuality itself of
Jesus, and on which both their hopes for tne 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 interrupted. Not only does one
of our evangelists furnish this truth in formal terms (Luke i, 2) ; but in many other places besides
we perceive 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 an
other time, a reproduction of lessons and impressions received.

Now let it be allowed for argument s sake that the belief and teach
ing of the apostles are distinct from those of subsequent Christianty,
yet it is surely a mere paradox to maintain that they did not assert,
as taught by their Master, truths which an agnostic denies. They
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 certainly spoke, as Paul did, of Jesus Christ
returning to judge the world; they certainly spoke, as Paul did, of
u 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 regarded by an overwhelming majority of reasonable men as a mere
paradox ; and I cannot conceive, until he says so, that Prof. Huxley
would maintain it. But if so, then all Prof. Huxley s argumenta
tion 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

36 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIS Tl A NITY

believe Jesus Christ s teaching ; he is so far an unbeliever, and "unbe
liever," Dr. Johnson says, is an equivalent of " infidel."

This consideration will indicate another irrelevance in Prof. Hux
ley 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 necessary to frame a defini
tion 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
liever " is of course, as Prof. Huxley says, a relative and not a positive
term. He makes a great deal of play out of what he seems to suppose
will be a very painful and surprising 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 be
fore 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 apolo
gize for the mistake. 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 difference between us;
not even if they had known that he was the head of an orthodox
Christian seminary." Probably not ; and I will add 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 repu
diating for himself the uuplesant epithets which he deprecates. It
would, I suspect, have been of very little avail to attempt a subtle ex
planation, 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 respecting 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 a downright infi
del, such as I confessed myself, and that there was an end of the mat
ter. There is no fair way of avoiding the plain matter of fact in
either case. A Mohammedan 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 scien
tific point of view. Whether Prof. Huxley is justified in his denial of
that creed is a further question, which demands separate considera
tion, 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 re-

AGNOSTICISM. 37

sponsibility 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 considerations, but by a misquotation which
the superior accuracy of a man of science ought to have rendered im
possible. 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 paper by bringing against this statement his
rather favorite charge of "immorality" and even "most profound
immorality he was the more bound to accuracy in his quotation of
my words. But neither in the official report 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 im
port of the statement. He goes on to denounce " the pestilent doc
trine 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 unpleasant 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, deliber
ately, 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 acknowledge. 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 sufficiently indicated. I said that
" 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 agnostic coolly says he knows nothing. An agnos
ticism 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 toler
able ? y I do not think this deserves to be called " 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 between 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 fiirst and last on
his lips. I think, as I have admitted, that it should be unpleasant for a

* Page 39.

38 AGNOSTICISM AXD CHRISTIANITY.

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, how
ever, of denying 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 sympathy with the most sacred figure of
humanity in his deepest beliefs and feelings, 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 sensibility in any man who
could say it without pain.

The plain fact is that this misquotation would have been as impos
sible as a good deal else of Prof. Huxley s 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, error.s, 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 millions 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 doc
trines 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 characteris
tics, be vital and permanent forces in the world. Prof. Huxley tells
us, in a melancholy 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 Christi, 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 difficul
ties, 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 and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest"; and the attraction of that voice out
weighs 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, genera
tion after generation, of the veracity of the four evangelical witnesses,

A GNOSTICISM. 39

and of the human and divine reality of the figure they describe, has at
least something of the weight of the verdict of a jury. Securus judi-
cat orbis terrarum. Practically the figure of Christ lives. The
Gospels have created ifc; 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 character.
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 infallible 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 facts he alleges, I will con
sider the question of external evidence on which he dwells. I must
repeat that the argument of my paper is independent of this contro
versy. The fact that our Lord taught and believed what agnostics
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 men
tion, 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 verj r 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 witness
could be accepted, if the condition, precedent were proof that he had never invented and promul
gated 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 dis
credited, 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
untrustworthiness of the story of the Gospels; and his conclusion is
that it involves the incredibility of the story of the Gadarene swine.
A more complete evasion of his own question 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 consider-
tion which would have been a serious obstacle to my belief. If he
were prepared to say, on his high scientific authority, that the narra
tive involves a contradiction of established scieniitic truth, I could
not but defer to such a decision, and I might be driven to consider
those possibilities of interpolation in the narrative, which Prof.
Huxley is g^od 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 \\oapriwi objection to offer. . . . For anything I can absolutely prove to the
contrary, there may be spiritual things eapahle of the same transmigration, with like effects. . . .
So I d clare, as plainly as 1 can, that I am unable to show cause why these transferable devils
should not exist.

40 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Very well, then, as the highest science of the day is unable to show
cause against the possibility of the narrative, and as I regard the Gospels
as containing the evidence of trustworthy persons who were contem
porary 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. Huxley ventures " to doubt whether
at this present moment any Protestant theologian, who has a reputa
tion 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 objection to my believing it.

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
Gospels the authentic and contemporary evidence of known writers.
He repeats, "without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four
Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers."
In particular, he challenges 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 "([ wich Dr. Wace had defined the scope of that us-elul adjective) surrender.
However, as Dr. Wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Kenan s writings,
by wlucl^he feels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further enlightenment, con
tenting 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 biblical criticism tlvit may be specially his
property, the main results of that criticism, as they a.ie set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur,
Reuss, and Volkmar, lor example, would not be sensibly affected.

Let me begin then, by enlightening Prof. Huxley about M. Kenan s
surrender. 1 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 " Authenticity of the Gospels," * and in some lectures on
the "Gospel and its Witnesses"; f and I shall take the liberty, for
convenience sake, of repeating some of the observations there made."

I beg first to refer to the preface to M. Kenan s "Vie de Jesus."
There M. Kenan says :

As to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of St. Luke is a regular composition,
fonnded upon earlier documents. It is the work of an author who chooser, 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 reasoning; but one
thing at all events is beyond doubt, namely, that the author of tlie third Gospel and of the Acts is
a man who belonged to the second apostoiic generation ; and this suffices for our purpose. The
date of this Gospel, moreover, may be determined with sufficient precision by considerations
drawn from the boofc itself. The twenty-first chapter of St. Luke, which is inseparable fnvn the
rest of the work, was certainly written after the siege of Jenir-alem, but not long arter. We are,
therefore, here on solid ground, for we are dealing with a woik proceeding entirely from the same
hand, and possessing the most complete unity.

It may be important to observe that this admission has been sup
ported by M. Kenan s further investigations, as expressed in his subse
quent 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 Gospel. 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 resemblance of style and of ideas, furnish on this point
abundant demonstrations.

A second proposition, which has not the same certainty, but which may, however, be regarded
as extremely probable, is that the author of the Act is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him
for a considerable part of his travels.

* Religious Tract Society. t John Murray, 1883. $ Fifteenth edition, p. 49.

A GNOSTICISM. 41

At a first glance, M. Renan observes, this proposition appears indu
bitable, 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 astonished 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 obscure 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.
Renan 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, M. Renan s judgments are not to be regarded as affording
in themselves any adequate basis for our acceptance of the authen
ticity 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 all ages of
the Church; and they do not rest, in the first instance, on the
authority of any modern critic. But though M. Renan 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
objections to those sacred books have all the weight of the admissions
of a hostile witness. No one doubts his familiarity 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 other
wise 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 authorship of
St. Luke s Gospel, we are at least justified in concluding 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 Gospels ; 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. Renan says in the same preface (" Vie de
Jesus," p. Ixxxi) :

To sum up, I admit the four canonical Gospels as serious documents. All go back to the age
which followed the death of Jesus ; but their historical value is very diverse. St. Matthew evi
dently 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 these words*
detaches them from the context, and renders them easily recognizable by the critic.

42 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

In respect again to St. Mark, he says (p. Ixxxii) :

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 leatt of later additions have been made. The details of fact
possess in St. Mark a definiteness which we seek in vain in the other evangelists. He is fond of
reporting certain sayings of our Lord in Syro-Chaldaic. He is full of minute observations, pro-
reedintr, 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 inunmcy, ami who had preserved a vivid image of him, was the apostle Peter himself, as
Papiaa has it.

I call these admissions a "practical surrender" of the adverse case,
as stated by critics like IStrauss and Baur, who denied that we had in
the Gospels contemporary evidence, and I do not think it necessary to
define the adjective, in order to please Prof. Huxley s appetite for defi
nitions. At the very least it is a direct contradiction of Prof. Hux
ley s statement* that we know "absolutely nothing" of "the origina
tor or originators" of the narratives in the first three Gospels; and 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. Renan
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 bibli
cal criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur,
Reuss, and Volkmar, for example." It is scarcely comprehensible
how a writer, who has acquaintance enough with this subject to ven
ture on Prof. Huxley s sweeping assertions, can have ventured to
couple together those four names for such a purpose. " Strauss, Baur,
Reuss, and Volkmar " I Why, they are absolutely destructive of one
another! Baur rejected Strauss s theory and setup 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 whioh Baur himself puts him out of court on
this particular controversy. He says,f " The chief peculiarity of
Sirauss s work is, that it is a criticism of the Gospel history without
a criticism of the Gospels." Strauss, in fact, explained the miraculous
stories in the Gospels by resolving them into myths, and it was of no
importance to his theory how the documents originated. But Baur
endeavored, by a minute criticism of the Gospels themselves, to inves
tigate the historical circumstances of their origin ; and he maintained
that they were Tetidenz-Schrifteii, compiled in the second century,
with polemical purposes. Volkmar, however, is in direct conflict with
Baur on this point, and in the very work to which Prof. Huxley
refers,;); he enumerates (p. 18) among "the written testimonies of the
first century besides St. Paul s epistles to the Galatians, Corinth
ians, 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 So of our reckoning about 75 probably; to be precise,
about 73," and he proceeds to give a detailed account 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
liis. Baur, therefore, having upset Strauss, Volkmar proceeds to

* Page 24.

t " Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien," 1847, p. 41.
% " Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit," 1882.

A GNOSTICISM. 4b

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 introduction to the synoptic Gospels, he
sums up "the results he believes to have been obtained by critical
analysis," under thirteen heads; and the following are some of them:

2. Of the three synoptic Gospels one only, that which ecclesiastical tradition agrees in attribut
ing 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 resurrection, and perhaps also of
some other passages of which he is the sole narrator.

4. A book, which an ancient and respectable testimony attributes to Mark, the disciple of Peter,
was certainly used by St. Luke as the principal source of the portion of his Gospel between chap,
ter iv, 31, and ix, 50; and between xviii, 15, and xxi. 38.

5. According to all probibility, 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 criti
cism," as represented 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 agreement with Renan.
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. Hux-
Iry 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 assertions he, and writers like him, are given to mak
ing 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 Volkmar and Reuss.
Volkmar 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 authorities in support of his opinion when they
are in direct 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 arguments in defense of such a posi
tion 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
othodox critics like myself, but those of Renan, of Volkmar, and of
Reuss I may add of Pfleiderer, 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.
M irk, and declares that there is no ground whatever for that suppo
sition of an Ur-Marcus that is an original 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 one side, when it, in fact, directly
contradicts him; and his case is not the only one to which such strict
ures might be applied. In "Robert Elsmere," for example, there is
some vaporing about the " great critical operation of the present cent
ury "having destroyed the historical basis of the Gospel narrative.

4:4 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

As a matter of fact, as we have seen, the great critical operation has
resulted, according to the testimony 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. Conclusions which are denied by Volkmar, denied by
Renan, denied by Reuss, are not to be thrown at our heads with a supe
rior 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 Straus 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 ifc 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. Hux
ley. I have, I think, shown that he has evaded my point; he has
evaded his own points; he has misquoted my words; he has misrep
resented the results of the very criticism to which he appeals; and he
rests his case on assumptions which his own authorities repudiate.
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 accu
racy of reference and strictness of argument.

IV.

AGNOSTICISM.

A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HUXLEY.

BY W. C. MAGEE.

BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH.

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 himself 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 unless and until good and suffi
cient 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

AGNOSTICISM. 45

called. Other persons classify us according to what they know, or
think they know, of our characters or opinions, sometimes correctly,
sometimes incorrectly. And were I to find myself apparently incor
rectly 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 suggestion to Prof.
Huxley, it would be that the term " infidel " is capable of definition,
and that when Dr. Wace has defined it, if the professor accept his defi
nition, it would remain 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
himself an infidel and a miscreant too, in the original and etymolog
ical 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 readers of this review and that is, as to
my use, in my speech 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; but 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 writings 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 themselves, 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."

46 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

There is therefore in my opinion a cowardly agnosticism just as
there is also a cowardly Christianity. A Christian who spends his
whole life in the selfish aim of saving his own soul, and never troubles
himself with trying to help to save other men, either from destruction
in the next world or from pain and suffering here, is a cowardly
Christian. The eremites of the early days of Christianity, 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 typi
cal 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 agnosti
cism 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 thrust
ing myself into other men s disputes, more especially when a combat
ant 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 per
sonal questions raised by his references to myself. I hope that, after
making due allowance for Hibernicisms and for imperfect acquaint
ance with English modes of thought and expression, he will accept
my explanation as sufficient.

AGNOSTICISM : A REJOINDER.

BY PROF. THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

THE concluding paragraph of the Bishop of Peterborough 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 talking of the cowardice of persons who object to
call themselves by a nickname, which must in their eyes be as inap
propriate 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 defini
tion 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 I have shown, " infidel" merely means somebody

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 47

who does not believe what you believe yourself, 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 infidel. Tne ludicrous aspect of the thing comes in only
when either of us demands that the two others should so label them
selves. It is a terrible business to have to explain 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 confidence.
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. Referring 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 1
which, with his " profoundly " moral readiness to say >l unpleasant 11 things, he is pleased to eay
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 oil
which this positive statement is based. I shall be unfeignedly sur
prised 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 sur
prise just as when the fifth act of a new play proves unexpectedly
bright and interesting. Mrs. Ward will, I hope, pardon the compari
son, if I say that her effective clearing away of antiquated incum-
brances from the lists of the controversy reminds me of nothing so
much as of the action of some neat-handed, but strong- wristed, Phyl
lis, who, gracefully wielding her long-handled " Turk s head," sweeps
away the accumulated results of the toil of generations of spiders. 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 approba
tion 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 interfere with the fact that
each of them has made important contributions to the body of truth
ultimately established. If I cite Buffon, Linnaeus, Lamarck, and
Cuvier, as having each and all taken a leading share in building up
modern biology, the statement that every one of these great natural
ists disagreed with, and even more or less contradicted, all the rest is

* Page 45.

1 1 may perhaps return to the questions 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 aa gravely as surprisingly erroneous.

48 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIS Tl A NITY.

quite true: but the supposition that the latter assertion is in any way
inconsistent with the former, would betray a strange ignorance of the
manner in which all true science advances.

Dr. Wace takes a great deal of trouble to make it appear 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 respects, he has entertained a very erroneous conception of
my intentions. Things would assume more accurate proportions in
Dr. Wace s mind if he would kindly remember that it is just thirty
years since ecclesiastical thunderbolts 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 cro
siers were like unto a weaver s beam. So that I almost think I might
not have noticed Dr. Wace s attack, personal as it was ; and although,
as he is good enough to tell us, separate copies are to be had for the
modest equivalent 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 two
pence-halfpenny, or, at the most, threepence, would have enabled Dr.
Wace so far to comply 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 complains. 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 anything
about the important events which had taken place at the Church Con
gress; and I think I can venture to affirm that there was not a single
copy of Dr. Wace s 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 anticipation that Dr.
Wace will succeed in showing me " that a scientist dealing with ques
tions of theology or biblical criticism may go quite as far astray as
theologians often do in dealing with questions of science."* I have
already 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 recognized 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 question that his whole cast of thought
and style of argumentation are pre-eminently and typically theolog
ical. 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 argument I have

* Page 46.

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 49

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 sci
ence. They are all, facts and reasoning alike, either identical with,
or consequential upon, propositions which are to be found in the
works of scholars and theologians of the highest repute in the only
t\vo 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.f
It is true that, to the best of my ability, I have satisfied myself of
the soundness of the foundations on which my arguments are built,
and I desire to be held fully responsible 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 conviction 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
rudiments " 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 generation. A high court of ecclesias
tical jurisdiction, with a host of great lawyers in battle array, is, and,
for Heaven knows how long, will be occupied with these very ques
tions of " washings of cups and pots and brazen vessels," which the
Master, whose professed representatives are rending the Church over
these squabbles, had in his mind when, as we are told, he uttered the
scathing rebuke :

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you 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 doc
trine of the " open Bible," or anything but a grave misgiving of the
results of diligent reading of the Bible, without the help of ecclesias
tical spectacles, by the- mass of the people. Greatly to the surprise 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 people. 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 meta
physics 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

* The United States ought, perhaps, to be added, but I am not sure.

t 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 astronomy. Zeller s l> Vortrage und Abhandlungen "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 Urchristenthnm " and "DieTubinger 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 opinion of a scientific theologian about theologians of this stamp see pp. 225
and 227 of the Vortrage."

4

50 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

with Christianity, to the intoxication and delusion of mankind, lies
in copious draughts from the 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. It the
New Testament is translated into Zulu by Protestant 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 unedu
cated to do? Has it ever occurred to those who talk in this fashion
that the creeds and articles of their several confessions; their deter
mination of the exact nature and extent of the teachings 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 these questions.
They were first taken up in a purely scientific spirit just about a cen
tury 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 solu
tions are certainly false, while others are more or less probably true.

If I am doing my best to rouse my countrymen out of their dog
matic slumbers, it is not that they may be amused by seeing who gets
the best of it, in a contest between a "scientist" and a theologian.
The serious question is whether theological men of science, or theo
logical 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 gentlemen 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 New 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 New Testa
ment books are not responsible for the doctrine invented by the
churches that they are anything but ordinary historical documents.
The author of the third G-ospel tells us as straightforwardly as a man
can that he has no claim to any other character than that of an ordi-

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 51

nary compiler and editor, who had before him the works of many and
variously qualified predecessors.

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 or 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 anything, 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 criti
cism 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 essential belief and cardinal teaching, t

I certainly was not aware that I had evaded the questions here
stated ; indeed, I should say that I have indicated 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 involved 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 doubting 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 doubt that the
three synoptic Gospels, so far from being the work of three independ
ent writers, are closely inter-dependent,;); 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 dependent on the third; and the opinion of the
majority of the best critics has, of late years, more and more con
verged toward the conviction that our canonical second Gospel (the
so-called "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 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 "essential belief
and cardinal teaching 71 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 contained in that collection ; but, at the point of

* Page 33.
t Page 34.

+ 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" (p. 82). That a "theologian of repute "
should confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact, is not so
singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might imagine.

$$ Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of " copying " will be particu"
larly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case stated in that most excellent little book,
The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels," by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke (Mac-
millan, 1884). To those who have not passed through such painful experiences I may recommend
the brief discussion of the genuineness of the " CasKet Letters " in rny friend Mr. Skelton s inter
esting book, "Maitlandof Lethiugton." The second edition of Holtzmann s " Lehrbuch," pub
lished in 1886, gives a remarkably 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 (sachkundige) critics differ," and he decides in favor of Mark.

52 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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
implication, 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 Gospel, 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 com
petence than the other two, ignores any " Sermon on the Mount,"
such as that reported by "Matthew," 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 con
nection.

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, 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 com
parison of the two " sermons " suggests very strongly that " Luke s
version is the earlier. The correspondence 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 expo
sition 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 hundred and seven in the " Sermon on
the Mount" ; the excess 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 prob
ability that " Matthew s" version of the sermon is historically accu
rate than there is that Luke s version is so ; and they can not both be
accurate.

" Luke" either knew the collection of loosely connected and aphor
istic 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 the existence of such a document as our canonical
" Matthew," 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 conceive that he believed the first Gospel

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 53

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 "esssential belief and cardinal teach
ing" of Jesus which is contained in the Sermon on the Mount; and,
certainly, he could not have shared Dr. Wace s view of its import
ance.*

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 Ser
mon on the Mount was preached by Jesus of Nazareth? If conjec
ture is permissible, where nothing else is possible, the most probable
conjecture seems to be that "Matthew," having a cento of sayings
attributed - rightly or wrongly it is impossible to say to Jesus,
among his materials, thought they were, or might be, records of a
continuous discourse, and put them in at the place he thought like
liest. Ancient historians of the highest character saw no harm in com
posing long speeches which never were spoken, and putting them into
the mouths of statesmen and warriors; and I presume that whoever is
represented by "Matthew" would have been greviously 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 representative of the
oldest tradition, it appeals in both "Matthew" 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 embod
ied 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 sub
stituted 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 J he adds to the list of
verities which he imagines to be unassailable, " The story of the Pas
sion." I am not quite sure what he means by this I am not aware
that anyone (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has pro
pounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion; and 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 ortho
dox view, happened after the crucifixion, and which is, in a dogmatic

*Holtzmann (" Dieeynoptigchen Evangelien," 1863. p. 75), following Ewald, argue? 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. at he calls it in his
recently published "Lehrbuch"(p. 372), "an artificial mosaic work."

tSee Schurer, "Geechichte dee jiidischen Volkes," Zweiter Theil, p. 384.

$Page 34.

54 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIST I A XITY.

sense, the most important part of the story, is founded on solid his
torical proofs, I must beg leave to express a diametrically opposite
conviction.

What do we find when the accounts of the events in question, con
tained in the three synoptic Gospels, are compared together ? In the
oldest, there is a simple, straightforward statement which, for any
thing 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 support 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
physical 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 terrible; 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. Temperate, strong men,
such as the ordinary Galilean peasants were, might live for several
days on the cross. It is necessary to bear these facts in mind when we
read the account contained in the fifteenth chapter of the second Gos
pel.

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
Arimathea must have gone to Pilate, made his preparations, and
deposited the body in the rock-cut tomb before sunrise, which, at that
time of the year was about the twelfth hour. That any one should die
after only six hours crucifixion could not have been at all in accord
ance 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 satis
fied on this point by the testimony of the Roman officer who was in
command of the execution party. Those who paid attention to the
extraordinarily 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 afterward (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 has gone to his
native country of Galilee, and that the disciples and Peter will find
him there.

*Spacious, because a young man could sit in it " on the right side" (xv, 5), and therefore wit&
plenty of room to spare.

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 55

Thus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradition that, for
any evidence to the contrary, the sepulchre might 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 command
ment, 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 narra
tive 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 Gospel, they are hopelessly discrepant with one
another. And this is the more significant because the pregnant
phrase u 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 singu
lar 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 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 opposite pole of opinion. And
he is most careful to tell us that he abstained from any re-examina
tion of the facts.

Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood ; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them
which were apostles belore me ; but I went away into Arabia. (Galationts i, 16, 17.)

I do not presume to quarrel with Paul s procedure. If it satisfied
him, that was his aifair; 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 esti
mate 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 subsequent time, worth while
"to confer with flesh and blood," or, in modern phrase, to re-examine
the facts for himself? or was he ready to accept anything that fitted
in with his preconceived ideas ? Does he mean, when he speaks of

56 A GNOS TICISM A ND CHRIS TIA NITY

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 him
self? 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 evidence 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 prob
able interpretation of the Apocalypse can be trusted, among the fol
lowers of Jesus also, it was fully believed, in spite of all evidence to
the contrary, that the Emperor Nero 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 opinion that Dr.
Wace s challenge touching 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. 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 arriv
ing 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 difficulty of making allow
ance for these prepossessions is enhanced 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 interpolated;
and of the historical sense, or want of sense, and the dogmatic tenden
cies, 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 i ond of attribut
ing 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 readers of the docu
ments which prove the exact contrary. The fact is that, in the course
of the first three centuries of its existence, the Church rapidly under-

*I am very sorry for the interpolated " in," because citation ought to be accurate in email
thinga as in great. But what difference it makes whether one "believes Jesus 1 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 "ueiieve in him" you.
must necessarily believe him."

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 57

went a process of evolution of the most remarkable character, the final
stage of which is far more different from the first than Anglicanism is
from Quakerism. The key to the comprehension of the problem of
the origin of what is now called " Christianity/ and its relation
to Jesus of Nazareth, lies here. Nor can we arrive at any sound con
clusion as to what it is probable that Jesus actually said and did with
out being clear on this head. By far the most important and subse
quently influential steps in the evolution of Christianity took place in
the course of the century, more or less, which followed upon the cru
cifixion. It is almost the darkest period of Church history, but, most
fortunately, the beginning and the end of the period are brightly
illuminated 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 themselves 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 :

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; but
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 Jus
tin s opinion ; but some of his fellow-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 refusal 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 except 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 con
ceives the Logos to be a second God, inferior to the first, unknowable,
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 oi the nat-

* True for Justin ; but there is a school of theological critics, who more or less question the his
torical reality of Paul and the genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles.

t See "Dial, cum Tryphone." sections 47 and 35. It is to be understood that Justin does not
arrange these categories in order as I have done.

58 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ural immortality 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 com
ing and the establishment of the millennium.

This pillar of the Church in the middle of the second century a
much-traveled native of Samaria was certainly well acquainted with
Kome, probably with Alexandria, and it is likely that he knew the
siate 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

Justin s Christianity.

A

f \

Orthodox Judceo-Chiistianity. Idolothytic

Judaism. , A > Christianity. Paganism.

1 II III IV V VI VII VIII

it is obvious that they form a gradational series from orthodox Juda
ism, on the extreme left, to paganism, whether philosophic or popular,
on the extreme right; and it will further be observed that, while
Justin s conception of Christianity is very broad, he rigorously
excludes two classes of persons who, in his time, called themselves
Christians; namely, those who insist on circumcision and other
observances of the law on the part of Gentile converts; that is to say,
the strict Jud^eo-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" Chris
tians, because I can not devise a better name, not because it is strictly
defensible etymologically.

At the present moment I do not suppose there is an English mis
sionary 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 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 heret
ical.

Modern Christianity has, in fact, not only shifted far to the right of
Justin s position, but it is of much narrower compass.

Justin.

- Christianity. Modern Christirnity . Paganism.

i if in fv v vi vii ~vm

For though it includes VII, and even, in saint and relic worship, cuts
a "monstrous cantle * out of paganism, it excludes, not only all
Judaeo-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 heretic, 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.

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 59

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 wrote the Epistle to the Galatians some
where 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, of extant documen
tary 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 Testament of the authorship and author
ity of which we have such good evidence.

And what is the state of things we find disclosed? A bitter quar
rel, 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 " withholds Paul from
charging Peter to his face with " dissimulation."

The subject of the hot dispute was simply this: Were Gentile con
verts 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
admission 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. " Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye receive circumcis
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 Naza-
renes 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 Nazarenes of Jerusalem most strenuously opposed
Paul s "gospel," insisting on every convert becoming 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 settled 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 Anti
och, he at first inclined to Paul s view, and ate with the Gentile
converts ; but when " certain came from James," drew back, and sepa
rated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the
rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even

* I guard mvself against being supposed to affirm that even the four cardinal epistles of Paul
may not have been seriously tampered with. See note on page 57 .

60 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation (Galatians 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 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 converts to
their body, unless these, either by birth or by becoming proselytes,
were also strict Jews. In fact, the sole difference between James and
Peter and Jobn, 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 Temple, 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 epistles, 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 col
ored with all the art of a reconciler, anxious to cover up a scandal.
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." But 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 conference, some time after the
writing of the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians, and imme
diately after the dispatch of that to the Eomans, Paul makes his last
visit to Jerusalem, and presents himself to James and all the elders.
And this is what the Acts tells us of the interview :

And they said unto him; Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (or myriads) there are
among the Jews of them which have believed ; and they are all zealous for the law : and they
have been informed concerning the*- , that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gen
tiles to forsake Moses, tell them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the cus
toms (Acts xxi, 20, 21).

They therefore request that he should perform a certain public relig
ious 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 internal dissensions
of the followers of Jesus, speaks of Paul as a " ringleader of the sect
of the Nazarenes (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 " ring
leader of the sect of Anglicans." In lact, u Nazarene " was, as is well
known, the distinctive appellation applied to Jesus; his immediate
followers were known as Nazarenes, while the congregation of the dis
ciples, and, later, of converts at Jerusalem the Jerusalem church

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 61

was emphatically the " sect of the Nazarenes," no more in itself to be
regarded as anything outside Judaism than 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
orthodoxy than Nazarenism 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 observance 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 Anti-
och and elsewhere ; and it would seem that it was to these converts,
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-permission given by Paul, and had eaten
meats offered to idols, they would have belonged to Justin s seventh
category.

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 mat
ter another way, the center of gravity of orthodoxy, which is at the
extreme right of the series in the nineteenth century, was at the
extreme left, just before the middle of the first century, when the
" sect of the Nazarenes " 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 (Nazarenes 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. Ecclesiastical authority would have us believe
that the words which are given at the end of the first Gospel, " Go ye,
therefore, and snake 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 part
ing 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 Corne
lius ; and Paul, in the Galatians, knows nothing of words which would
have completely borne him out as against those who, though they

* All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years ago. See "Die Entste-
hung der alt-katholit*chen Kirche " (1850), p. 108.

62 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

heard, must be supposed to have either forgotten or ignored 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 destroy the law, but that every jot and tittle of the
law must be fulfilled, which surely would have been pretty good evi
dence for their view of the question.

We are sometimes told that the personal friends and daily com
panions of Jesus remained zealous Jews and opposed Paul s innova
tions, 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 sagac
ity of their Master ; nor do I see any way of getting it to harmonize
with the other orthodox postulate; namely, 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 Gospel is more remote from that of the "sect
of the Nazarenes" 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 Testament the Apocalypse in the roughest of Greek, under
went an astounding metamorphosis of both doctrine and style by the
time he reached the ripe age of ninety or so, and provided the world
with a history 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 irreconcilable in regard to matters of fact with
that of his fellow-apostle, Matthew.

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 Messiahship 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 offensive 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 Nazarenism, lest it
should end in useless rebellion against their Roman masters, 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
Nazarenes were but little troubled for the first twenty years of their
existence; and the undying hatred of the Jews against those later

* " If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to he the Messiah, the first
Christians can have been aware of no other essential differences from the Jews." Zeller
"Vortrage"(1865), p. 216.

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER.

converts whom they regarded as apostates and fautors 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 ortho
dox Nazarenism, and whose teachings threatened Judaism with
destruction. And, from their point of view, they were quite right.
In the course of a century, Pauline influences had a large share in
driving primitive Nazarenism from being the very heart of the new
faith into the position 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 Nazarene methods of observing even
the Sabbath or the Passover 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 strik
ing saying, and the advocate of equity, of love, and of humility; that
he may have disregarded the subtleties of the bigots for legal observ
ance, 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 sufferer of Isaiah may
be, as I think it is, extremely probable. 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 nation since the appearance of the pseudo-prophetic work of
Daniel, a century and a half before his time; or whether the enthu
siasm 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 primi
tive 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
e fluxion 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.t

Far be 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 matter of courage, Dr. Wace has raised for
himself a monument cere perennius. For, really, in my poor jndg-

* Dr. Harnack, in the lately published second edition of his " Dogmengeschichte," aays (p. 39),
11 Jesus Christ brought forward no new doctrine " ; and again (p 05), "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.

tPage 40.

64 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ment, 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 on the evidence offered.
I feel less complimented perhaps 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 ignorance 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 believed 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 possessed 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 consequent events are
the message from the ruler of the synagogue 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 miracle. Both
agree in stating that there was only one possessed man, and that he
was the residence of many devils, whose name was " Legion."

In the first Gospel, the event which immediately precedes 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 discus
sion 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," " Gergesenes," and " Gadarenes " in different
ancient MSS. ; while the first has " Gadarenes."

The really inportant 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 reconcilers
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 sorry 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 synoptic 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 elec
tion, what reasons has he to give for his choice ? If it is suggested

AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER. 65

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 protest so warmly ; not only is all question
of inspiration at 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 independent 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 sub
stance, but in arrangement, and in the use of identical words in the
same order, are such, that only two alternatives are conceivable :
either one evangelist freely copied from the other, or both based them
selves 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 witnesses. Fur
ther, 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 assumption 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 demonstrable, either that all depend on some antecedent statement,
of the authorship of which nothing is known, or that two are depen
dent upon the third?

Dr. Wace says he believes the Gadarene story ; whichever 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 whomsoever made. So that, if Dr. "\Vace
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 eccen
tric expectation of the Bishop of Peterborough, 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 " Christians " 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 WAGE, D. D.

READERS who may be willing to look at this further reply on my
part to Prof. Huxley need not be apprehensive 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
contentions; still less of being troubled with any personal explana
tions. 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 " theologians
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 insinuating that English theologians are
debarred by selfish interests from candid inquiry. I shall presently
have something to say on the grave misrepresentation of German
theology which these insinuations involve; but for myself and for
English theologians I shall not condescend to reply to them. I con
tent myself with calling the reader 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 sim
ply 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 imputation 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 impartial 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 " 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."
As evidence of that teaching and of those convictions I appealed to
three testimonies the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord s Prayer, and
the story of the Passion and I urged that whatever critical opinion
might 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/

CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 6?

In his original reply, instead of meeting this appeal to three specific
testimonies, Prof. Huxley shifted the argument to the question 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 Volkmar." He referred to these supposed "results"
in support of his assertion that we know "absolutely nothing" of the
authorship or genuineness of the four Gospels, and he challenged my
reference to Renan as a witness to the fact that criticism has estab
lished 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 criticism. 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 state
ments of another writer are " surprisingly 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 correst quotations. But he does not
deny, as of course he can not, that Reuss, for example, really states, as
the mature result of his investigations, what I quoted from him
respecting St. Luke s Gospel, namely, that it was written by St. Luke
and has 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. Huxley expressed special confidence. It was not therefore my
statements of the results of biblical criticism with which Prof. Hux
ley was confronted, but Reuss s statements ; 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, fur
ther, that the disagreements of a series of investigators do not in any way interfere with the fact
that each of them has made important contributions to the body of truth ultimately established.

But I beg to observe that Prof. Huxley did not appeal to Reuss s
methods, but to Reuss s results. He said that no retraction by M.
Renan would sensibly affect " the main results of biblical criticism as
they are set forth in the ivorks of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volk
mar." I have given him the results as set forth by Reuss in Reuss s
own words, and all he has to offer in reply 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 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,

68 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

and iu 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 difference 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 theo
logians 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 t&e 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 author
ities 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. Reuss thinks, as many good
critics have thought, that the Sermon on the Mount combines various
distinct uttera-nces 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 account 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 perhaps made still better acquainted with the essential
purport and cardinal meaning of the speaker. On the supposition,
similarly, that St. Matthew and St. Luke are simply giving two dis
tinct accounts of the same address, with such omissions and varia
tions 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 bur
den of the address as if we only had one account, and perhaps in a
better position, as we see what were the points which both reporters
deemed essential. As Prof. Huxley himself observes, we have reports
of speeches in ancient historians 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 records.

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 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

CHRISTIANITY AND AGOSTICISM. 69

authority is recognized by him, and which will save both my readers
and myself from embarking on the wide and waste ocean of the Ger
man criticism of the last fifty years. " Holtzmann, then," says Prof.
Huxley in a note on page 104, " has no doubt that the Sermon on the
Mount is a compilation, or, as he. calls it in his recently published
Lehrbuch (p. 372), an artificial mosaic work. Now, let the
reader attend to what Holtzmann really says in the passage referred
to. His words are: " In the so-called Sermon on the Mount (Matt,
v-vii) we find constructed, on the basis of a real discourse of funda
mental 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 qualified. Holtzmann
recognizes, as will be seen, that a real discourse of fundamental signif-
cance underlies the Sermon 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 obliterated, espe
cially 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, 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 supe
rior method of ratiocination in these matters on which he prides him
self. 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 Koyal Society,
and who became eminent as one of the firtt mathematicians of Europe
before he became similarly eminent as a theologian. I am content
here to let Prof. Huxley s assumption pass, as I am only concerned to
illustrate the fallacious character of the reasoning he founds upon
them. He tells us, then, that

there ia now no doubt that the three synoptic Gospels, so far from being the work of three inde
pendent writers, are closely interdependent, 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 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 "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 New Testament criti
cism, of immeasurably greater importance than the discussion about dates and authorship. But if,
as I believe to be ttw 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, accord
ing to Dr. Wace, of the " essential belief aud cardinal teaching " of Jesus (

I have quoted every word of this passage because I am anxious 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

* il In der sog. Bergpredigt, Mt. 5-7, gibt eich eine, auf Grund einer wirklichen Rede von funda-
mentaler Bedeutung sich erhebende, kunstreich gegliederte Mosaikarbeit."

70 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

writers J: I am at a lass to conceive. If Mr. Fronde, the late Prof.
Brewer, and the late Mr. Green each use the Rolls Calendars of the
reign of Henry VIII, I do not see that this abolishes their individu
ality. Any historian who describes the Peloponnesian War uses the
memoirs of that war written by Thucydides; but Bishop Thiiiwall
and Mr. Grote were, I presume, independent writers. But to pass to
a more important point, that which is assumed is that the alleged
tradition, writen 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 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 representative 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 subse
quent argument 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, necessarily representing " the oldest tradi
tion " 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. Holtz-
mann concludes (" Lehrbuch," page 376) that " under all the circum
stances the hypothesis of two sources offers the most probable solution
of the synoptical problem"; and it is surely incredible 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 believed among
us"; but Prof. Huxley asks us to assume that none of these records
were old, and none trustworthy, but that particular one which fur
nishes a sort of skeleton to the first three Gospels. There is no evi
dence whatever, 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 genuineness of the Sermon on the Mount and the
Lord s Prayer!

* Page 51.

CHRIST! A NITY AND A GNOSTICIS M. 71

But let us pass to another point in Prof. Huxley s mode of argu
ment. Let us grant, again, for the sake of argument, his nan 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? 1 Well, that is a
very interesting inquiry, which has, in point of fact, often been con
sidered 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 Savior, 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. 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
represented in St. Mark s Gospel. When, in fact, Prof. Huxley asks,
in answer to Holtzmann, who is again unfavorable to his views,
" What conceivable motive could Mark have for omitting it ? " * the
answers that arise are innumerable. 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 Gospels, 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 gospel of Jesus Christ" was to be told, within the compass 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 savs 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

* Page 53.

72 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

even the world it-elf 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 pre
posterous than this supposition that because a certain tradition is the
oldest authority, therefore every other authority is discredited ? Bos-
well writes a life of Johnson; therefore every record of Johnson s acts
or words which is not in Boswell is to be suspected. Carlyle writes a
life of Sterling first, and Archdeacon Hare writes one afterward;
therefore nothing in the archdeacon 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 instance:

Luke either knew the collection of loosely connected 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 the existence of such a document as our canonical "Matthew," 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 conceive 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.

I pass by the description of the Sermon on the Mount as a "collec
tion 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 mechanical theory
of inspiration which he denounces in his antagonists. He writes as if
there were something absolutely sacred, neither to be altered nor
added to, in the mere words of some old authority of which he con
ceives himself 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 Gospels, and he seems immedi
ately to adopt the anathema of the book of Revelation, and to pro
claim 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. Abbott, he shall be
forthwith scientifically excommunicated. I venture to submit, as a
mere matter of common sense, that if three persons used one docu
ment, 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, lastly, 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 very 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 Sermon on the
Mount go to pieces, so do his cavils at the authenticity of the Lord s

CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 73

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 agnosticism to such a
length as to deny the substantial genuineness 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 seriously what he says on this subject. He
says:

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 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 011 solid historical proofs, I must
beg leave to express a diametrically 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 supposed anything of the kind, but
by this gratuitous supposition 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 partic
ular 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 exclama
tion is recorded by St. Luke; but let me remind 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 the high
priest, " Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? " and our Lord s
reply, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," with his imme
diate condemnation, on the ground tiiat 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 evidence Prof. Huxley puts aside
with the mere passing observation 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 declarations 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 unhistorical.

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

74 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 resurrection. 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 respon
sibilities which agnosticism involves. I say that whether agnosticism
be justifiable or not, it involves a denial of the beliefs in which Jesus
lived and died. It would equally involve a denial of them had he
never risen; and if Prof. Huxley really thinks, therefore, that a denial
of the resurrection affects the evidence afforded by the Passion, he
must be incapable of distinguishing between two successive 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 argument. I note, by the way, that, after refer
ring 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 pay 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 credibility 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 discus
sion, why does Prof. Huxley leave out of account the scourging, with
the indication of weakness in our Lord s inability to bear his cross,
and treat him as exposed to crucifixion in the condition simply of
" temperate, strong men, such as the ordinary Galilean peasants
were " ? In the next place, I am informed by good medical authority
that he is quite mistaken in saying that "no serious physical symp
toms 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 ordinarily 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 wit
ness 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 ac
cessory ; and I thought that supposition was practically out of

CHE IS TIA NITY A ND A GNOSTICISM. 75

account among reasonable men. Prof. Huxley argues as if he had
only to deal with the further evidence of St. Paul. That, indeed, is
evidence of a far more momentous nature than he recognizes ; but it
is by no means the most important. It is beyond question that the
Christian society, from the earliest moment of its existence, believed
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 explained; but it is certainly not explained by the supposition
of a fraud on the part of Joseph of Arimathea. As to Prof. Huxley s
assertion that the accounts in the three Gospels are " hopelessly dis
crepant," it is easily made and as easily denied ; but it is out of all
reason that Prof. Huxley s bare assertion on such a point should out
weigh 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 reck
less :

According to his own showing, Paul, in the vigor of his manhood, with every means of "becom
ing acquainted, at firt hand, with 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 ? - If, as we are told, our Lord personally
appeared to St. Paul, spoke to him, and gave him specific commands,
was he to disbelieve 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 injunctions. It is, to say the least, rash, if not
presumptuous, for Prof. Huxley to declare that such a vision as St.
Paul had would not have convinced him; and, at all events, the ques
tion is not disposed of by calling the manifestation "a vision." Two
things are certain about St. Paul. One is that he was in the confi
dence of the Pharisees, and was their trusted agent in persecuting the
Christiana; and the other is that he was afterward in the confidence
of the apostles, and knew all their side of the case. He holds, there
fore, 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
nevertheless 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.
Tii is is not a witness to be put aside in Prof. Huxley s off-hand man
ner.

But the strangest part of Prof. Huxley s article remains to be
noticed ; and, so far as the main point at issue between us is con
cerned, I need hardly have noticed anything else. He proceeds to a
long and intricate discussion, quite needless, as I think, for his main
object, respecting the relations between the Nazarenes, Ebionites,
Jewish and Gentile Christians, first in the time of Justin Martyr and

76 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

then of St. Paul. Into this discussion, in the course of which he
makes assumptions which, as Holtzmann will tell him, are as much
questioned by the German 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 anything else ? But what more is necessary for the pur
pose of my argument? To say, indeed, that this a priori probability
places us "in a position to form a safe judgment 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 simulta
neously 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 religon
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. Huxley has, in fact, dragged
his readers through this thorny question of Jewish and Gentile Chris
tianity in order to establish, at the end of it, and, as it seems, quite
unconsciously, an essential part of the very allegation which I origin
ally made. I said that a person who "knows nothing " 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 contention, offers to prove, with great elaboration, that Jesus was
an orthordox 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. Huxley, though he still endeav
ors 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 Gadarene 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 m * Matthew. In the former there is one pos
sessed 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

* Page 63.

CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 77

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 per
form such and such an operation on a patient, will he feel in any per
plexity if he meets another spectator half an hour afterward who says
he saw the operation performed 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 imporant
point was the nature of the miracle itself, and not the number of pos
sessed 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 relative authority of the
first three Gospels. As two includes one, and as both witnesses are in
my judgment equally to be trusted, I adopt the supposition which
includes the statements of both. It is a pure assumption that inspi
ration 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
secondary points, so no miracle has been wrought to exclude the ordi
nary variations of truthful reporters in the Gospel narratives. But
a miracle, in my belief, has been wrought in inspiring four men to
give, within the compass 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 feelings from those which Prof. Huxley provokes
that I turn for a while to Mrs. Humphrey Ward s article on " The
New Reformation." Since he adopts that article as a sufficient con
futation 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 contributed 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
account of the effect upon Robert Elsmere and Merriman of absorp
tion in that barbarian scene, she is not describing her own experience
and the source of her own aberrations. But I feel especially bound to
treat her argument with consideration, and to waive any opposition
which can be avoided. I am sorry that she, too, questions the possi
bility 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 vindica
tion unnecessary ; and if Prof. Huxley can extend his study of Ger
man theological literature much beyond Zeller s "Vortrage of "a
quarter of a century ago," or RitschFs writings 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 schol
ars 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.

78 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 rational
istic 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 Eeview " that this criticism,
and particularly the movement led by Baur, is - an attack which has
failed." The Quarterly Reviewer may be left to take care of himself;
but I would only ask what is the evidence 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 contrary, she says that "his
tory protested," and she goes on to prophesy the success of other spec
ulations which arose from that protest, concluding with an imaginary
sketch, like that with which "Robert Elsmere" ends, of a "new
Reformation 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
Matthew now the synoptics are sacrificed to St. John, now St. John to the syuoptics. Baur rele
gates 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 T hessalonians and
Philippians must go back again. Volkmar sweeps together Gospels and Epistles in a heap
toward the middle of the second century as the earliest date for almost all of them ; add 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 ; Renan will have none of
the Tubingen school; Volkmar is already antiquated ; and Pfleiderer s fancies aernowin 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 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 orthodoxy,"
or as justifying her statement that "the Church of England practi
cally gives- its verdict" in favor, for instance, of the school which
regards the Pentateuch or the Hexateuch 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 German 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 ot the Theo
logical Sciences," edited, with the assistance of several distinguished
tcholars, by Prof. Zochler, I find, at page 215 of the third edition, pub
lished this year, the following brief summary of what, in Dr. Strack s
opinion, is the result of the controversy so far :

The futnre results of further labors 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 Graff and Wellhaui-en
at present enjoys, we are nevertheless convinced that it will not permanently lead to any essential
alteration in the conception which has hitherto prevailed of the history of Israel, and in particu-

CHRIST1A NITY AND A GNOSTIC IS M.

lar of the work of Moses. On the other hand, one result will certainly remain, that the Penta
teuch 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 maybe 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 collection being denominated from its
principal author. But he is convinced that the general conclusions
of the prevalent school of Old Testament criticism, which involve an
entire subversion of our present conceptions of Old Testament his
tory, will not be maintained. In the face of this opinion, it does not
seem presumptuous to express an apprehension that the younger
school of Hebrew 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
supposing 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, writ
ten 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 stimu
lating investigation. In the same valuable hand-book of Dr. Zochler s,.
already quoted, I find, under the " History of the Science of Introduc
tion to the New Testament," the heading (page 15, vol. i, part 2),
" Result of the controversy 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
inflicted too deep wounds ou the Christian faith. ... 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 pro
duced no knowledge on that subject !

In fact, Mrs. Ward s comparison seems to me to point in exactly the
opposite direction :

I say to myeelf (says hrr spokesman, p. 466) it has taken some thirty years for German critical
scienee to conquer English opinion in the matter of the Old Testament. . . . How much longer
will it take belore we feel the victory of the same science . . . with regard to the history of Chris
tian origins ?

Remembering 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 Wellhausen does now, does it not seem more in conformity
with experience and with probability to anticipate that, as the Ger
mans 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 com
parative health after twenty more. The fever of the revolutionary

80 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

criticism of the Old Testament is now at its height, but the parallel
suggests a similar return to a more sober and common-sense state of
mind. The most famous name, in short, of German New Testament
criticism is now associated with exploded theories ; and we are asked
to shut our eyes to this undoubted fact because Mrs. Ward prophesies
a d inherent fate for the name now most famous in Old Testament crit
icism. 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 disparagement of English the
ology and theologians which Prof. Huxley expresses so offensively,
and which Mrs. Ward encourages. She and Prof. Huxley talk as if
German 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 inveetigation 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 distinguished 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 contrary 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 substantially to the old Christian faith are at least as numer
ous, 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 " Keal-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 exegetical work of the last two generations? On the rational
istic side, though not exclusively so, is the " Kurzgefasstes exeget-
isches 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 Testa
ment almost the standard work on the subject Keil and Delitzsch
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 publica
tion under the editorship of Profs. Strack and Zochler. The Germans
have more time for theoretical investigations than English theolo
gians, 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.

CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 81

"Weird would leave an impression that, because German theological
chairs are not shackled by articles like our own, therefore the best
German thought and criticism is on the rationalistic side, they are
-conveying an entirely prejudiced representation of the facts. The
effect of the German system is to make everything an open question;
as though there were no such thing as a settled system of the spiritual
universe, and no established facts in Christian history; and thus to
enable any man of great ability with a skeptical turn to unsettle a
generation and leave the edifice of belief to be built up again. But
the edifice is built up again, and Germans take as large a part in
rebuilding it as in undermining it. Because Prof. Huxley and Mrs.
Ward can quote great German names on one side, let it not be for
gotten 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 late eminent divine, Thomasius, whose " History of Dogmas" has
just been republished after his death, and who wrote in the devoutest
spirit of the Lutheran 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 comprehension of religious problems." A man
who studies the history 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 apprehension 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
translated 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 Avhole 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 second 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 prov
ing 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 presumption 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 New 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 solution of the

6

82 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 beforehand
that simply because the " Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," by
that learned scholar and able writer, Dr. Edersheim, whose recent loss
is so much to be deplored, does not "translate" all the Gospel narra
tives into natural occurrences, 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 without a tribute of respect and grati
tude the name of that great scholar, the veteran of all these contro
versies, whose " Leben Jesu," published several years before Strauss
was heard of, is still, perhaps, the most valuable book of reference on
the subject all, from that eminent man downward, have, by their
own repeated confession, started from the assumption that the mirac
ulous 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, profound, and con
soling beliefs; but they start from no such invincible prejudice, and
they are pledged by their principles 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 advocated 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,
result. If he could succeed in persuading people that the Gospels are
untrustworthy collections of legends, made 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, th&
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 pre
sented by the intestine quarrels of churchmen 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
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 Scriptures iu 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 security for u 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

* See the preface to Riehm s " Handworterbuch."

CHRIS Tl A NITY A ND A GNOSTIC IS M. 83

the fantastic critical theories by which he is fascinated ; and, instead
of Englishmen translating the Bible into the language 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 PROF. HUXLEY.

BY W. C. MAGEE,

BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH.

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
beyond 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 agnostic, and as differing only as to whether he
might or might not "venture beyond" that. On this supposition,
my reference that he had called Christianity "sorry," or, as I ought
to have said, "poor stuff " (the terms are, 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 correctly be regarded as alto
gether 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, 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 wonderfully accurate and life-like that I
might almost be pardoned 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 diplays itself in so many of his
utterances respecting the Christian faith ?

Nevertheless I gladly admit that the particular expression I had
ascribed to him is not to be reckoned among the already too numer
ous illustrations of what I had described as "his " readiness to say
unpleasant/ and after reading his last article I must add, offen
sive " 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 argu
ments 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 Calvary 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
Roman emperor in St. Peter s, on Christmas day, A. D. 800, and
known to posterity as the Great (chiefly by his agglutinative Galli
cized denomination of Charlemagne), 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 contemporary 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 excellent 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 sub
sequently wrote. In fact, there is 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 expecttd 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 interesting records
of the period during which the Eoman 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 manu
script copy of the work, made in the tenth century, and once the
property of the monastery 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 interpolated or
otherwise tampered with. The main features of the strange story con
tained in the " Historia Translationis " 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 solitary place, far away from the crowd, with which the liberality of
Prince Louis, whom I then served, had provided me. This place is situated in that part of Germany
which lies between the Neckar and the Main.t and is nowadays called the Odenwald by those who
live in and about it. And here having built, according to my capacity 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, I beean to think to what saint or martyr I could best dedi
cate it. A good deal of time had passed while my thoughts fluctuated about this matter, when it

* My citations are made from Teulet s "Einhardi omnia quse 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.

t At present included in the duchies of Heese-Darmstadt and Baden.

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 85

happened that a certain deacon of the Roman Church, named Deusdona, arrived at the court for
the purpose of seeking the faror 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, mention was made of the translation of the body of the blessed
Sebastian,* 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 paints
which rest at Home. He at first hesitated, and declared that he did not know how that could be
done. But observing that I was both auxious 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 immediately 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 desired, 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 acceptance 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
be those of the holy martyrs Marcellmus and Petrus ; and when he
had got as far on his homeward journey as the Burgundian town of
Solothurn or Soleure,f 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 oi 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 companions, 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 uni
versal rejoicings, they traveled quickly to the city of Argentoratum, which is now called Stras-
burg. Thence embarking on the Rhine they came to the place called Portus,$ and landing on the
east bank of the river, at the fifth station, thence they arrived at Michilinstadt,^ accompanied by
an immense multitude, 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 guaran
tee. 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, 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, having 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 covered with a blood-like exudation (loculuin

* This took place in the year 826 A. D. The relics were brought from Rome and deposited in
the Church of St. Madardus at Soissons.

t Now included in western Switzerland.

t Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little below the embouchure of
the Neckar.

tt The present Michilstadt, thirty miles northeast of Heidelberg.

86 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

mirum in modum humor e sanguineo undique distillantem}, and at
once sent a message to Eginhard.

Then I and those priests who accompanied me beheld this stupendous 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 meaning of the
portent might be ascertained. All that happened, 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 a saline taste, something like that of tears, and was thin as
water, though of the color of true blood," and he clearly 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 companions receiving revelations in dreams that the
bodies of the saints were to be transferred from that place to another."
At last a priest, Hildfrid, saw, in a dream, a venerable white-haired
man in a priest s vestments, who bitterly reproached Eginhard for not
obeying the repeated orders of the saints, and upon this the journey
was commenced. Why Eginhard delayed obedience to these repeated
visions so long does not appear. He does not say so in so many words,
but the general tenor of the narrative leads one to suppose that Mulin-
heim (afterward Seligenstadt) 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 sus
picious 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 depos
ited in the church of St. Martin, in the village ot Ostheim. Hither a
paralytic nun (sanctimonialis qucedam paralytica) of the name of
Ruodlang was brought in a car by her friends and relatives from a
monastery 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 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
daring the celebration of the mass. " Thus he lay a long time, as if
asleep, and all his limbs straightening and his flesh strengthening
(recepta firmitate nervorum), 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 deafness had ceased along
with the palsy. (Cap. iii, 33.)

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 87

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 miracles 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.

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 revealed 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 t >ngue. 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 these 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 compan
ions, I have ravaged the kingdom of the Franks. 1 (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."

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. 1 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, hy the power of Christ and the merits of the blessed martyrs, as it were awakening from
sleep, rose up quite well, to the astonishment of all present; 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 Translations " 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 you 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
sincerity, of things which happened within his own knowledge, 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 ?

* In the middle ages one of the most favorite accusations against witches was that they com"
mitted just these enormities.

88 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Well, it is hard upon Eg in hard to say so, but it is exactly 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 per
ception of right and wrong make their exit. Let us go back to the
point at which we left him, secretly perusing the 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 pive 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 proposi
tion pleased me, and I made up my mind to test the value of the somewhat ambiguous promise at
once ; * so giving him the mule and money for his journey I ordered my notary Katleig (who
already desired to go to Rome to offer his devotions there) to go with him. Therefore, having ieft
Aix-la Chapelle (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 Tibur-
lius 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 receive 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 serv-ant of the notary, one Reginbald, 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, Keginbald had a vision. Somebody habited as a deacon
appeared 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
Duesdona 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 chinch,
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 protuis-
sis non habereni). Nevertheless, they put up at the deacon s house
near St. Peter da Vincula. 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 hud been confided
was gone to Beneventum 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 about 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 Labi-
cana, about three thousand paces from the town, and cautiously and carefully inspected the tomb
of that martyr, in order to discover whether itcouhl be opened w hout 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 rnacie out the nature of their tomb, they went
away thinking their host would not know what they had been about. But things fell out differ
ently from what they had imagined. (Cap. i, 7.)

In fact, Deacon Duesdona. who doubtless kept an eye on his guests,
knew all about their manoeuvres and made haste to offer his services, in
order that, " with the help of God " (si Deus votis eorumfavere digna-
retur), they should all work together. The deacon was evidently
alarmed lest they should succeed without his help.

* It is pretty clear that Eginhard hud his doubts about the deacon, whose pledge he qualifies as
Sjwnsiones incertw. But, to be sure, he wrote after events which lully justified skepticism.

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 89

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
tablet 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 punishable with death
by the Roman la\v, it seems not unnatural that Deacon Deusdona
should have become uneasy, and have urged Ratleig 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 Eginhard 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 resur
rectionist doings, he took counsel with a Greek monk, one Basil,
and, accompanied by Hunus, but saying nothing to Deusdona,
they committed another 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 Tiburtius.

How Deusdona 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 behind 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 Lunison and Hunus awaiting his arrival. The notary s
opinion of the character of his worthy colleagues, however, may be
gathered 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, traveling by way of St. Mau
rice and the Lake of Geneva, eventually reached Soleure.

Eginhard tells all this story with the most wa ive air of unconscious
ness 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
robbery. 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 saints were
safely bestowed at Seligenstadt, he found Hildoin waiting for an
audience in the emperor s antechamber, and began to talk to him
about the miracle of the bloody exudation. In the course of conversa
tion, Eginhard happened to allude to the remarkable fineness of the.

90 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 sup
posed 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 Pavia,
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, however, 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 he some great reason why all the people, except
himself, had suddenly hecome somnolent; and, determining to avail himself of the opportunity
thus offered (oblata occa-sione utendum), he rose and, 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.)

Hildoin went on to tell Eginhard that Hunus at first declared to
him that these purloined relics belonged to St. Tiburtius; but after
ward confessed, as a great secret, how he had come by them, and he
wound up his discourse thus:

They have a place of honor beside St. Medardus, where they are worshiped with great venera
tion 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 perturbation 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 remains of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus while Egin
hard 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 Seligen-
stadt 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 considerable
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 know
ingly 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 resti
tution 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 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 Rome no one had any opportunity of meddling with them. More
over, Lunison, throwing himself at Eginhard s feet, confessed with
many tears what actually took place. It will be remembered that,
after the body of St. Marcellinus was abstracted from its tomb, Ratleig

* The words are scrinia sine clave, which seem to mean "having no key." But the circum
stances forbid the idea of breaking open.

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 91

deposited it in the house of Deusdona, in charge of the latter s
brother, Lunison. But Hunus, being very much disappointed that he
could not get hold of the body of St. Tiburtius, and afraid to go back
to his abbot empty-handed, bribed Lunison with four pieces of gold
and five 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)ofihQ sacred remains. Eginhard s indigna
tion at the " rapine >: of this " nequissimus nebulo is exquisitely
droll. It would appear 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 acquisition of the
relics. Eginhard makes a contract with Deusdona 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 abbot, Hil-
doin, that portions of his relics have been stolen and conveyed to the
latter. With much ado he succeeds in getting them back.

Hildoin s agent, Hunus, in delivering these stolen goods to him, at
first declared that they were the relics of St. Tiburtius, which Hildoin
desired him to obtain ; but afterward invented a story of their being
the product of a theft, which the providential drowsiness of his com
panions enabled him to perpetrate from the relics which Hildoin 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 Ratleig. And the honest notary himself seems to have no hesi
tation 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 Egin
hard 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 possession of the souls of men. The most super
stitious among our modern countrymen turn to supernatural agencies
only when natural causes seem insufficient; to Eginhard 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-work
ing relics was greatly coveted, not only on high but on very low
grounds. To a man like Eginhard, the mere satisfaction of the relig
ious sentiment was obviously a powerful attraction. But, more than
this, the possession of such a treasure was an immense practical advan
tage. If the saints were duly flattered and worshiped, there was no

92 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 manufactory; and pilgrimages
thereto might suffice to cleanse the performers from any amount of sin.
A letter to Lupus, subsequently abbot 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 worshipers. The writer
shows that he is anything but satisfied 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
utterly disappointed.

We may admit, then, without impeachment of Eginhard s sincerity,
or of his honor under all ordinary circumstances, that when piety, self-
interest, the glory of the Church in general, and that of the church at
Seligenstadt 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 profes
sional 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 w r as 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 consciousness of the moral bearings of what they are doing.

The cases of miraculously effected cures of which Eginhard is ocular
witness appear to belong to classes of disease in which malingering is
possible or hysteria presumable. 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 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 happens 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).*

* Eginhard ppeaks with lofty contempt of the " vana, ac superstitiosa prcesumptw " of the poor
woman s companions in trying to alleviate her sufferings with "herbt* and frivolous incanta
tions." Vain enough, no doubt, but the mulierculse " might have returned the epithet " super
stitious" with interest.

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 93

There is also a good deal said about a very questionable blind man
one Albricus (Alberich ?) who, having been cured, not of his blind
ness, but of another disease under which he labored, took up his
quarters at Seligenstadt, 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 impeachment of his honor
in the supposition. The logic of the matter is quite simple, if some
what sophistical. The holiness of the church of the martyrs guaran
tees the reality of the appearance of the archangel Gabriel there, and
what the archangel says must be true. Therefore, if anything seems
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 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 enlight
ened 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 interest of it?
We are not likely to believe in 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, probably 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 centuries
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 traditional
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? And
if, on the other hand, you accept Eginhard s evidence, 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 evi
dence, 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

94 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

in the miracles 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 Corin
thians, and Eomans and that, in three out of these four, Paul lays
claim to the power of working miracles.f Must we suppose, there
fore, 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
striking cases to bring forward, he would have neglected evidence 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 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 sig
nificance. When a man testifies to a miracle, he not onlv 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 histori
cal events of his time is no guarantee for the soundness of his judg
ment where the supernatural is concerned, the fervid rhetoric of the
Apostle of the Gentiles, his absolute 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 comparitive 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 various 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 England in
the seventeenth century as Paul separated himself from the Judaism
of the first century, at the bidding of the " inner light >: - who went
through 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, and his energy in visiting them, not merely
in Great Britain and Ireland and the West India Islands, but on the
continent of Europe and that of North America, was no less remarka
ble. A few years after Fox began to preach there were reckoned 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 cheer
fulness 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.

* 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 incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but
those of the people about him.

t See 1 Cor. xii, 10-28 ; 2 Cor. vi, 12 ; Rom. xv, 19.

THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS. 95

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 preacher, there can be no question of his
power as a speaker, nor any doubt as to the dignity and attractiveness
of his personality, 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 powers as a miracle-
worker, the following passage of his autobiography (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 ab >ut to let her blood, she being first bound, and many people being about her, hold
ing her by violence ; but he could get no blood 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 epeak to her, and in the name of the Lord to bid her be quiet
and still. And fhe was so. And the Lord s power settled her mind and she mended ; and after
wards received the truth and continued in it to her death. And the Lord s name was honoured ;
to whom the glory of all hia works belongs. Many great and wonderful things were wrought by
the heavenly power in those days. For the Lord made bare his omnipotent arm and manifested his
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 subjective and objective veri
ties 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 famil
iarity or friendship with young or old." "About the beginning of the
year 1647 I was moved of the Lord to go into Darbyshire." 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 undenled, 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 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 pas
sages he could write, his astounding influence on the contemporaries
of Milton and of Cromwell is no mystery. But this modern repro
duction of the ancient prophet, with his "Thus saith the Lord,"
" This is the work of the Lord," steeped in supernatuialism and glory
ing in blind faith, is the mental antipodes of the philosopher, founded
in naturalism and a fanatic for evidence.to whom these affirmations
inevitably suggest the previous question : " How do you know that
the Lord saith it? : "How do you know that the Lord doeth it?

* " A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Christian Experiences,
etc., of George Pox," ed. i, 1694, pp. 27, 28.

96 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

and who is compelled to demand that rational ground for belief with
out which, to the man of science, assent is merely an immoral pre
tense.

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 regard the demand for it as a kind of blas
phemy.

IX.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

BY PROF. THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat.* AUGXJSTI-
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 public to inter
est 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 relatively 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
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 " agnosti

cism."

The people who call themselves " agnostics have been charged
with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves
" infidels. 7 It has been insinuated 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 described 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 intellectual. This principle may be stated in various

* 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. 97

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 proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is
what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential
to agnosticism". That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral
is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought
to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reproba
tion ought to attach to the 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 agnosticism is not, and
can not be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is con
cerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the denial
of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions
respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics 3 profess
entire certainty. And in so far as these ecclesiastical persons can be
justified in the old-established custom (which many nowadays think
more honored in the breach than the observance) of using opprobrious
names to those who differ from them, I fully admit 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 prob
lems the investigation of which ends in a verdict 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
unknowable. What I am sure about is that there are many topics
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
probabilities of the case. Eelatively to myself, I am quite sure that
the region of uncertainty the nebulous country in which words play
the part of realities is far more extensive than I could wish. Mate
rialism and idealism; theism and atheism; the doctrine of the soul
and its mortality 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 metaphysical " Nifelheim." It
is getting on for twenty-five centuries, at least, since mankind began
seriously to give their minds to these topics. Generation after gener
ation, 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 innumerable 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 pre
vented 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 between agnosticism and

7

98 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ecclesiasticism. For theology, the science, is one thing; and ecclesi-
asticism, the championship 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 agnostic, knowing
too well the influence of prejudice and idiosyncrasy, even on those
who desire most earnestly to be impartial, c<in wish for nothing more
urgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at per
fect 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 conclusions 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 neigh
bors 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 investi
gation of the evidence of these propositions. He tells us that
" religious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature." f He declares
that he has prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who
show cause for arrest of judgment as emissaries of Satan. It neces
sarily follows that, for him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertain
ment 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 defined it to be. " Faith," said this unconscious plagia
rist 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 our
selves and those who hold this doctrine is even more moral than intel
lectual. 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 between 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 themselves. 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 expressing 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 weakened rather than strengthened by a good deal
of it. Greek science, Greek art, the ethics of old Israel, the social
organization of old Koine, contrived to come into being without the

* " Let us maintain, before we have proved. This seeming paradox is the secret of happiness. *
(Dr. Newman, "Tract 85," p. 85.)

t Dr. Newman, "Essay on Development," p. 357.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 99

help of any one who believed in a single distinctive article of the
simplest of the Christian creeds. The science, the art, the jurispru
dence, 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 despicable.

Again, all that is best in the ethics of the modern world, in so far
as it has not grown out of Greek thought or barbarian manhood, is
the direct development of the ethics of old Israel. There is no code
of legislation, ancient or modern, at once so just and so merciful, so
tender to the weak and poor, as the Jewish law; and if the Gospels
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, them 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 burn t-offer ings
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 contrary, 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 " Apos
tles " 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 because 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 misconduct 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 opponents. But, if
the agnostic really believes what he says, the " dreadful consequence }:
arguner (consistently I admit 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
exhorters. 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 ambiguity, or want of

100 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 assertion 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 guarantee 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
impossible for us to give any answer but this : We have not the
slightest objection to believe anything you like, if you 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 impressed 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 asserted that the
"Sermon on the Mount and the "Lord s Prayer 3 furnish a sum
mary and condensed view of the essentials of the teaching of Jesus of
Nazareth, set forth by himself. Now this supposed Summa of Naza-
rene 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 declares the superintending providence of
the former and our need of deliverance from the machinations of the
latter; 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 agnostics who deny that there is any
evidence of such a character as to justify certainty, respecting the
existence and the nature ol the spiritual world, contradict the express
declarations of Jesus. I have replied to this argumentation by show
ing 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.

But, whether the Gospels contain trustworthy statements 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 Nazarenes 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 spiriual world.

*It is by no means to be assumed that " spiritual " and " corporeal " are exact equivalents of
" immaterial " and "material " in the minds of ancient speculators on these topics.

A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIS Tl A NITT. 101

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 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 universe, 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 benevolent 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 darkness. 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
pestilence 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 earrhly 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 unquenchable fire there to endure
continual torture, without 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 existence 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 Scripture 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

102 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 idolatry
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 Christianity.
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
Reformation 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 Calvinistic fanatics of New
England did. Finally, in these last years of the nineteenth century,
the demonological hypotheses of the first century are, explicitly
or implicitly, 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 recognition of Jesus as the Son of God by the
demon is an allegory ; if the plain declaration of the writer of the first
Epis le of John (Hi, 8), u To this end was the Son of God manifested
that he might destroy the works of the devil," 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 ?f

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 accessibility

* 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 to be such, on the order of the Christian, let the Christian be
executed out of hand.

t See the expression of orthodox opinion i;pon the " accommodation " subterfuge, already cited,
p. 12.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 103

to prayer, and to shut the other to the no less definite teaching
ascribed to Jesus in regard to the personality 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 Vincentian dictum
that the doctrine which has been held " always, everywhere, and by all r
is to be received as authoritative, the demonology must possess a
higher sanction 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 doctrine on which the
Nazarene does not differ from the Christian, and the different historical
stages and contemporary subdivisions of Christianity from one
.another. And, if the demonology is accepted, there can be no reason
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 botli their eyes when they look at
ecclesiastici em, 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 declared 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
Testament, 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 question the demonology, or
try to explain it away, deny the truth of what Jesus said, and are, in
ecclesiastical terminology, " infidels 1 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 to write himself down an
* infidel." As was to be expected, he chose the former alternative ; and
I may express 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 principles (as I draw them), and the consequences of
ecclesiastical 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 judice) says : There is no good evidence 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 * intidel >: instead of an
" agnostic." To which the agnostic may reply: No; for two reasons:
first, because your evidence that Jesus said what you say he said is

104 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

worth very little ; and, secondly, because a man may be an agnostic
in the sense of admitting he has no positive knowledge; and yet con
sider 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 gener
ally 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 anything 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 those agnostics, who may
attach greater value than I do to any sort of pneumatological specu
lations, and not because I wish to escape the responsibility of declar
ing that, whether Jesus sanctioned the demonological part of Chris
tianity or not, I unhesitatingly reject it. The first answer, 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.

Now, in respect of the trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives, I
was anxious to get rid of the common assumption that the determina
tion 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 contemporaries 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 demonology which
they involve must be accepted. But the story of the " Translation of
the blessed Martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus," and the other considera
tions (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 miracu
lous is concerned, neither considerable intellectual ability, nor
undoubted honesty, nor knowledge of the world, nor proved faithful
ness as civil historians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye-wit
nesses and contemporaries, affords any guarantee of the objective
truth of their statements, when we know that a firm belief in the
miraculous was ingrained in their minds, and was the pre-supposition
of their observations and reasonings.

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 attributed to Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, whoever they may be, are personages
whose capacity and judgment 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 miraculous 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 his-

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 105

torical, 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 evidence in favor of
such miracles as those recorded by Eginhard, and consequently of
mediaeval demonology, is quite as good as that in favor of such mira
cles as the Gadarene, and consequently of JVazarene demonology, is
none of my discovery. Its strength was, wittingly or unwittingly,
suggested a century and a half ago by a theological scholar of emi
nence ; and it has been, if not exactly occupied, yet so fortified with
bastions and redoubts by a living ecclesiastical Vauban, that, in my
judgment, it has been rendered impregnable. In the early part of the
last century, the ecclesiastical mind in this country was much exer
cised by the question, not exactly 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 question 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 assumption that
the possession of the gift of miracle-working was prima facie evidence
of the soundness of the faith of the miracle-workers. The supposition
that miraculous 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 unbroken 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 mediaeval 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 miracles, from Justin, say, to Jerome, might be rec
ognized ; while, in later times, the Church having become " corrupt*
that is to say, having pursued one and the same line of development
further than was pleasing to Anglicans its alleged miracles must
needs be shams and impostures.

Under these circumstances, it may be imagined that the establish
ment of a scientific frontier, between the earlier realm of supposed
fact and the later of asserted delusion, had its difficuties ; and torrents
of theological special pleading about the subject flowed from clerical
pens; until that learned and acute Anglican divine, Conyers Middle-
ton, in his "Free Inquiry," tore the sophistical web they had labori
ously woven to pieces, and demonstrated that the miracle s of the
patristic age, early and late, must stand or fall together, inasmuch as
the evidence for the later is just as good as the evidence for the ear
lier wonders. If the one set are certified by contemporaneous wit
nesses of high repute, so are the other; and, in point of probability,.

106 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

there is not a pin to choose between the two. That is the solid and
irrefragable result of Middleton s contribution to the subject. But
the Free Inquirer s freedom had its limits ; and lie 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 np by another divine, Mid-
dleton s equal in learning and acuteness, and i ar 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
parade, with infinite skill, the utter hollowness of the arguments of
those of his brother Churchmen who dreamed that they could be both
Anglicans and Protestants. The argument of the u Essay on the
Miracles recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of the Early Ages/ *
by the present 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 laymen, 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 ques
tion is the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain phenomena at a
certain time and in a certain place. This sudden revelation of the
great gulf fixed between the eccleisastical and the scientific mind is
enough to take away the breath of any one unfamiliar with the cleri
cal organon. As if, one may retort, the assumption 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 hap
pened; 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 happened, or it did not. Whether the Gada-
rene " 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 New Testament chronology is, I suppose it

* I qnote 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," [ think I should eave myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and
from the " Essay on Development " by the same author.

t Yet, when it suits hie purpose, as in the introduction to the " Essay on Development, 1 " 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).

A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIST I A NITY. 107

may be assumed that the event in question, if it happened at all, took
place during the procuratorship of Pilate. If that is not the matter
about which evidence ought to be required, and not only legal but
strict scientific proof demanded 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 gentJy, are not exactly proba
ble, 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 pickpocket 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 for
midable antagonist. What, indeed, are they to reply when he puts
the very pertinent question :

" whether persons who, not merely question, but prejudge the ecclesiastical miracles on the
ground of their want of resemblance, whatever that be, to those contained in Scripture as if the
Almighty conld 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, 1

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 passage :

the narrative of the combats of St. Antony with evil spirits is a development rather than a con
tradiction of revelation, viz., of such texts as speak of Satan being cast ont by prayer and fasting.
To be shocked, then, at the miracles of ecclesiastical history, or to ridicule them for their strange
ness, is no part of a scriptural philosophy (p. liii-liv).

Further on, Dr. Newman declares that it has been admitted

that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circumstance between the miracles of
Scripture and of church history ; but this is by no means the case (p. Iv). . . . Specimens are not
wanting in the history of the Church of miracles as awful in their character and aa 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 history of such solemn
events. On the other hand, difficult instances in the Scripture history are such as these : the ser
pent 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 diviae suggestion (p. Ivi).

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 rebuilding 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 5; 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 Eloliim and their gallantries, on
which a large part of the worst practices of the mediaeval inquisitors
into witchcraft was based? Why forget 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. f enemies; and the fiery explo-

* Compare " Tract 85," p. 110: "I am persuaded that were men but consistent who oppose the
Churcn doctrines as being uuscriptural, they would vindicate the Jews lor rejecting the gospel."

t According to Dr. Newman, "This prayer [that of Bishop Alexander, who begged God to
take Arius away ] is said to have been offered about 3 P. M. on the Saturday; that same evening
Arius was in the great square of Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition"

108 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

sion which stopped the Julian building operations. Though the
words of the " Conclusion " of the " Essay on Miracles " may, perhaps,
be quoted against me, I may express my satisfaction at finding myself
in substantial accordance with a theologian above all suspicion of
heterodoxy. With all my heart, I can declare my belief that there is
just as good reason for believing 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 argument 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 rea
soning 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 argument forward to the alleged
Roman miracles of the present day, which Dr. Newman might not
have admitted, 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,
sometimes learned and acute persons, even philosophers of no mean
pretention, testify to the "levitation of bodies much heavier than
Elisha s axe; to the existence of "spirits 1 who, to the mere tactile
sense, have been indistinguishable from fl sh and blood, and occasion
ally have wrestled with all the vigor of Jacob s opponent; yet, further,
to the speech, in the language of raps, of spiritual beings, whose dis
courses, 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 " spirit
ualist r) who would cheerfully go to the stake in support of his pneu-
matological faith, and furnish evidence, after Paley s own heart, in
proof of the truth of his doctrines. Not a few modern divines, doubt
less struck by the possibility of refusing the spiritual evidence, if the
ecclesiastical evidence is accepted, and deprived of any a priori objec-

(p. clxx). The " infidel " Gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that " an option between poison
and miracle " is presented by this case; and it must be admitted, that if the bishop had been
within reach of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone hardly with him. Modern
" infidels," possessed 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 out
burst at Jerusalem.

* A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me roundly to task for venturing to doiibt the historical
and literal truth of the Gudarene story. The following passage in his letter is worth quotation :
44 Now to the materialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in spiritual verities, certainly
this story of the Gadarene or Gergesene swine presents insurmountable difficulties ; it seems gro
tesque 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
beneficent 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

Eentleman ^ho would be willing to give her a comfortable home and maintenance in exchange for
er spiritualistic services, as her guides consider her health is too delicate for public sittings ;
London preferred. Address Mary. 1 office of Light. "

Are we going back to the days of tue Judges, when wealthy Micah set up his private ephod,
teraphim, and Levite ?

A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRISTIA NITY. 109

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 * present a wonderful family likeness to those
which adorn the subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical
miracles of forty years ago. It is unfortunate for the "spiritualists*
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 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
elementary principles of right and wrong; and they triumphantly
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 impostures 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
ecclesiastics. They do not sneer at " evidence " ; nor repudiate 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 inven
tion of the cross. J

From the " levitation of the axe at one end of a period of near
three thousand years to the " levitation " of Sludge & Co. at the other
end, there is a complete continuity of the miraculous with every gra
dation 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 plausibly attested cases of
spiritual intervention. If one is true, all may be true; if one is false,
all may be false.

This is to rny mind, the inevitable result of that method of reason
ing which is applied to the confutation of Protestantism, with so
much success, by one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have

* Consider Tertullian s "sister" (" hodie apud DOS"), who conversed with angels, saw arid
heard mysteries, knew men s thoughts, and prescribed medicine for their bodies ( -t 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.

t See the New York " World " for Sunday, October 21, 1888 ; and the " Report of the Seybert
Commission," Philadelphia, 1887.

$ 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 Miracles," second edition,

110 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ever championed ecclesiasticism and one can not put his claims to
acuteness 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-Protestant epigrams
are profoundly true. But I have as little that, in the same sense, the
"Christianity of history is not" Komanism; 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 iu 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 total result of his ambidextral efforts is to shake
Christianity 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 were essentially in
harmony with his views preceded, and many followed him. "But
many remained; and, as the quondam Puseyite and present Ritual
istic party, they are continuing that work of sapping and mining the
Protestantism 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 Tractariau 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 preparatory school for
Papistry. So that it really behooves Englishmen (who, as I have
been informed by high authority, 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 information. His doctrines on ecclesiastical miracles
and on development are the corner-stones of the Tractarian fabric.
He believed that his arguments led either Romeward, or to what
ecclesiastics call " infidelity," and I call agnosticism. I believe that
he was quite right in this conviction; 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
Romanism ought to be rejected, and that an impartial consideration
of the evidence must refuse the authority of Jesus to anything more
than the Nazarenism of James and Peter and John. And let it not
be supposed that this is a mere " infidel " perversion of the facts. No
one has more openly and clearly admitted the possibility that they
may be fairly interpreted in this way than Dr. Newman. If, he says,
these are texts which seem to show that Jesus contemplated the evan
gelization of the heathen :

* u An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1 by J. H. Newman, D. D., pp. 7 and 8,
(1878.)

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. Ill

. . . Did not, the apostles hear our Lord ? and what was their impression from what they heard ?
Is it not certain that the apostles did not gather this truth from his teaching? ( u Tract 85, M p. 63.)

He said, " Preach the gospel to every creature." These words need have only meant " Bring-
all men to Christianity through Judaism." Make them Jews, that they may enjoy Christ s priv
ileges which are lodged in Judaism ; teach them those rites and ceremonies, circumcision and the
like, which hitherto have been dead ordinances, and now are living ; and so the apostles seem to
have understood them (Ibid., p. 65).

So far as Nazarenism differentiated itself from contemporary ortho
dox Judaism, it seems to have tended toward a revival of the ethical
and religions 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 doc
trines of the resurrection, of the last judgment 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 essen
tially of heathen origin.

How far Jesus positively sanctioned all these indrainings of circum
jacent paganism into Judaism; how far anyone 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 conceive 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 Chris
tianity as a dogmatic system and apart from the old Tsraelitish ethics
which it has appropriated and developed, lies in the answer which
mankind will eventually give to the question whether they are pre
pared 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 decidedly not to my advantage. It would
appear that " evasion r is my chief resource "incapacity for strict
argument 3 and "rottenness of ratiocination" my main mental char
acteristics, and that it is " barely credible J; that a statement which I
profess to make of my own knowledge is true. All which things I
notice, merely to illustrate the great truth, forced on me by long
experience, that it is only from those who enjoy the blessing of a firm
hold of the Christian faith that such manifestations of meekness,
patience, and charity are to be expected.

I had imagined that no one who had read my preceding 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.t

* 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 angef and his hosts was gained from Babylon :
it might still be divine nevertheless. God who made the prophet s ass speak, and thereby
instructed the prophet, might instruct his church by means of heathen Babylon " (" Tract 85," p-
83). There seems to be no end to the apologetic burden that Balaam s ass can carry.

t Page 66.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 demonological 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, unhesitatingly refuse belief in that teaching, and deny
the reality 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 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 chal
lenged. 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, ifc 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 illustra
tions 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 seventeen years later,
the same writer gives another report, also in the first person, of
Herod s speech on the same occasion. This second oration is twice as
long as the first, aud 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 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 fabrication; 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 " Antiqui
ties," but not in the " Wars," I am compelled 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

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 113

upon Joseph us s evidence that he propounded the aphorism, is it a
" mere evasion " to say, in reply, that the evidence that he did utter it
is Avorthless?

It appears again that, adopting the tactics of Conachar 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 history 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 Christianity was
a totally different thing from the Nazarenism of Jesus and his imme
diate 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 the followers of Jesus; suppose it to be hardly doubt
ful 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 (especially of speeches, about which ancient histo
rians 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 illustration 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 entertained that the old
familiar tones of the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to engage
in such needless discussion 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

Some ancient authorities omit: And Jesus said, "Father, forgive 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,

8

114 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 else
where) 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 tha
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 :

The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as the author of the Acts of the Apostles
Now the autlior 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 reason
ing ; 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 companion 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 J
to the fact that the author of the two books is a man of the second
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)f states that
he derives the above citation from the preface of the fifteenth edition
of the "Vie de Jesus." My copy of " Les Evangiles," dated 1877,
contains a list of Ben an s " CEuvres Completes," at the head of which
I find " Vie de Jesus," 15 edition. It is, therefore, a later work than
the edition of the "Vie de Jesus J: which Dr. Wace quotes. Now
"Les Evangiles," as its name implies, treats fully of 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 discovered in "The Apostles." I mention this
circumstance because I desire to point out that, taking even the strong
est of Renan s statements, I am still at a loss to see how it justifies that
large-sounding phrase "practical surrender of the adverse case." For,
on p. 438 of " Les Evangiles," Renan speaks of the way in which Luke s
" excellent intentions" have led him to torture history in the Acts ; he
declares Luke to be the founder of that "eternal fiction which is
called ecclesiastical history" ; and, on the preceding page, he talks of
the "myth* of the Ascension with its mise en scene voulue. At p.

* Page 10 tPage 40.

A GNOSTICISM A ND CHR1STIA NITY. 1 1 5

435, I find "Luc, ou 1 auteur quel qu il soit du troisieme Evangile 1
[Luke, ur whoever may be the author of the third Gospel] ; 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 " surrender" ! And, all
the while, the scientific student of theology 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.
Eor, in that case, he could not fail to have been acquainted 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.
AVace s citation (" Nineteeth Century," p. 365) * touching the first

Gospel :

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.

M. Kenan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence
of a collection of "logia," having a different origin from the text
in which they are imbedded, in Matthew. "Notes" are somewhat
suggestive of a shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional,
for M. Eenan 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 attention 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 expressed 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 developments of the legend, and to which the
Christian consciousness already attached infinite value.

M. Renan goes on to suggest that besides " Mark," " pseudo-
Matthew used an Aramaic version of the Gospel originally set forth
in that dialect. Finally, as to the second Gospel (" Nineteenth
Century," p. 365): f

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. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, 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

* Page 41. t Page 42.

116 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 theologians " 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 superfluous,
let him compare the statement that M. Renan has 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 Matthew, the apostle, wrote the first Gospel ; he does not
profess to know who is responsible for the collection of "logia," 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 interpolated and retouched ; and as to the author
" quel qu il soit " of the third Gospel, who is to " rely on the accounts
of a writer who deserves the cavalier treatment which " Luke : meets
with at M. Kenan 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 judg
ment, 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 contents ; on the
contrary, these reports would discredit the witnesses. The Gadarene
miracle, for example, is so extremely improbable, that the fact of its
being reported by three, even independent, authorities could not
justify belief in it unless we had the clearest evidence as to their
capacity as observers and as interpreters of their observations. 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 cred
ulity ; so that, if " Matthew," " Mark," and " Luke " are really respon
sible 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 referred, as an obiter dictum
of no consequence to my argument, 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 Volkmar, for example, would not be sen
sibly 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 architects of the fabric of exact knowledge are those
who introduce 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 unfre-

* I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M. Kenan s labors or intended to speak
sliehtinel.v of them.

AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 117

quently 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, although they often heartily
contradict one another. Notwithstanding 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, geography, and geol
ogy, are as largely rooted in the results of the labors of Buffon ; com
parative anatomy and paleontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier s results;
while invertebrate zoology and the revival of the idea of evolution 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 promi
nence to the cardinal fact of the divergence of the Nazarene and
Pauline tendencies in the primitive Church; so Reuss, in setting a
marvelous example of the cool and dispassionate application of the
principles of scientific criticism over the whole field of Scripture; so
Volkmar, in his clear and forcible statement of the Nazarene limita
tions of Jesus, contributed results of permanent value in scientific
theology. I took these names as they occurred to me. Undoubedtly,
I might have advantageously added to them; perhaps I might have
made a better 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. Ecclesiastical advocates, of course, can not
be expected to take this view of the matter. To them, these mere
seekers after truth, in so far as their results are unfavorable to the
creed the clerics have to support, are more or less " infidels," or favor
ers of " infidelity "; and the only thing they care to see, or probably
can see, is the fact that, in a great many matters, the truth-seekers
differ from one another, 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 a l contributed his share to the results of
theological science, was merely showing his ignorance; 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 Volkmar, or Renan ; my debt to these eminent
men so far my superiors in theological knowledge is, indeed, great;
yet it is not for their opinions, but for those I have been able to form
for myself, by their help.

In *< Agnosticism : a rejoinder" (p. 49) I have referred to the diffi
culties under which those professors of the science of theology, whose
tenure of their posts depends 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 thiiik men of common sense
would go elsewhere to learn astronomy.

118 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRISTIA NITY.

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 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 professional chair,
even of theology. I have very little doubt that if, in the year 1859,
the tenure of my office had depended upon my adherence to the doc
trines of Cuvier, the objections to those set forth in the " Origin of
Species - 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 disguise 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 theology; 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 Royal Society have turned their backs upon me, as his episcopal
colleagues boycotted him.

I say these facts are obvious, and that it is wholesome and needful
that they should be stated. It is in the interests 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 investing in foreign stock, lest so doing should mis
lead his judgment in his transactions with foreign states. Does this declaration prove that the
chancellor 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 contribu
tion to it, to which presently I propose to refer in detail. In that
contribution an article with the title <k Agnosticism," which appeared
a month or two since in "The Nineteenth Century* -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 statement, 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 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 phys
ical 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 reputa
tion; they are virtually the arguments of the whole non-Christian
world. He may possibly have, on some points, views peculiar to him
self. He may also have certain peculiar ways of stating them. But
it requires no great critical acuteness, it requires only ordinary fair
ness, to separate those of his utterances which represent facts
generally accepted, and arguments generally influential, from those
which represent only some peculiarity 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 exhibt constant antagonism among
themselves. I am at this moment thinking of two especially Mr.
Frederic Harrison and Mr. Herbert 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 religious
and practical character as to which he and Mr. Spencer would
be hardly on better terms. But, underneath the several questions
they quarrel about, there is a solid substructure of conclusions,
methods, and arguments, as to which they all agree agree in the

* " The Bishop of Peterborough departed so far from his customary courtesy and self-respect as
to speak of cowardly agnosticism. " PROF. HUXLEY, p. 9.

120 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

most absolute way. What this agreement consists in, and what prac
tical bearing, 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 pri
vate opinion of these eminent men, but ascertained facts with regard
to man and the universe; and the conclusions which, if we have
nothing 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 random, and wi]l 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, substan
tially 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 imagination can realize ; and also that,
whether or no it is limited, its extent is so vast as to be equally
unimaginable. Science 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 begin
ning.

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 farthest system of stars and that this
has always been so to the remotest of the penetrable abysses of time.
It is established yet further that the universe in its present condition
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 condi
tions of certain 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 has every appearance of being
morally complete. The interval between 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 decide 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 which
science finds any excuse for postulating or even suspecting the pres
ence 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 overwhelming evi
dence of analogy that such generation really does take place or has-

"COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM." 121

taken place at some earlier period. " Carbonic acid; water, and ammo
nia," says Prof. Huxley, "certainly possess no properties but those of
ordinary matter. . . . But when they are brought together under cer
tain conditions they give rise to protoplasm; and this protoplasm
exhibits the phenomena 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 uni
verse 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 spe
cial claims of Christianity. Approaching Christianity 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 contains
others which, though very probably true, are entirely 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 mon
strously improbable and so utterly unsupported by evidence that we
have no more ground for believing in them than we have in the wolf
of Romulus.

Such, briefly stated, are the main conclusions of science in so far as
they bear on theology and the theologic conception of humanity.
Let us now consider exactly what their bearing is. Prof. Huxley dis
tinctly 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 possibility and the actual occurrence of mira
cles. On the contrary, he would believe to-morrow in the miraculous
history of Christianity if only there were any evidence sufficiently
cogent in its favor; and on the authority of Christianity he would
believe in God and in man s immortality. 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, con
siders these claims to be unfounded. What follows 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. Accordingly, 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 concep
tion of God, and part bears specially on the theologic conception of
man. With regard to an intelligent creator and ruler, it finds him on
every ground to be a baseless and a superfluous 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 reversed. One after another these

* Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews," pp. 114, 117.

122 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

mysteries have been analyzed, not entirely, but to this extent at all
events, 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 regard to man, what science finds is analogous. Accord
ing to theology, he is a being specially related to God, and his con
duct and his destinies have an importance which dwarfs the sum of
material things into insignificance. But science exhibits him in a
very different light; it shows that in none of the qualities once
thought peculiar to him does he differ essentially from other phenom
ena 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 immortal human soul; while as for man s impor
tance 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 addi
tional years add anything to its comparative importance. Just as it
emerged out of lifeless matter yesterday, so will it sink again into life
less matter to-morrow. Or, to put the case more briefly still, it is
merely one fugitive manifestation of the same matter and force which,
always obedient 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 intelligence.

It is possible that Prof. Huxley, or some other scientific 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 expression aside and
paying attention only to the general meaning of what I have stated,
that the foregoing account of what science claims to have established
is not substantially true, and is not admitted to be so by any contem
porary thinker who opposes science to theism, from Mr. Frederic Har
rison 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 discussion. The men who are mainly
responsible for having forced the above views on the world, who have
unfolded to us the verities of nature and human history, and have
felt constrained by these to abandon their old religious convictions
these men and their followers have by common consent agreed, in
this country, to call themselves 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

"CO WARDLY A GNOSTICISM." 123

obvious, however, to every impartial observer, that the differences
between them are little more than verbal, and arise from bad writ
ing rather than from different reasoning. 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 phil
osophy. Prof. Huxley proclaims himself to be " dazed " and " bewild
ered" by the statements. 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. . . . Posi
tively, 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 certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undenled, he ehallnot 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 purpose of the dis
cussion 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 it is a method with no results,
or with results that are of no interest ? If so, there would be hardly
a human being idiot enough to waste a thought upon it. The inter
est resides in its results, and its results solely, and specially in those
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 religious bearings ; and the method is of interest
only in so far as it leads to these. Agnosticism means, therefore, pre
cisely 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 attributed 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 passage 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. 1 I am [says Prof. Huxley] quite dazed by this declaration. Are there then any con
clusions that are not purely mental ? Is there no relation to things social in mental conclu
sions which affect men s whole conception of life ? . . . Agnosticism is a stage In the evolution
of religion. If ... Mr. Harrison, like most people, means by religion theology, then, in my
judgement, 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 agnosticism is to all intents
and purposes a doctrine, a creed, a faith, or a philosophy, the essence,
of which is the negation of theologic religion. Now the fundamental
propositions of theologic religion are these: There is a personal 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

124 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

disbelief. I 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 purposes 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 agnostics, if they shrink from say
ing that there is no God, at least tell us that there is nothing to sug
gest 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 Sirjns; 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 he gravely declared him
self to be an agnostic? And precisely the same maybe 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 indors
ing 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 advice with
regard to such volumes as being " most wise" -" Commit them to the
flames, for they can contain nothing 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 dogmatic denial of the fundamental propositions of
theology, it differs from an absolute and dogmatic denial in a degree
that is so trivial as to be, in the words of Prof. Huxley 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. Hux
ley 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 propositions of theology,
so absolute that Prof. Huxley compares it to their death.

And now let us pass on to the next point in our argument, 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,

* "Lay Sermonp, Addresses, and Reviews, p. 125.

"COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM." 125

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 uni
verse 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 degradation ? 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. Spencer says the same thing with even greater clear
ness: while, as for Mr. Harrison, it is needless to quote from him;
for half of what he has written is an amplification of these state
ments.

It is admitted, then, that life, in some very practical sense, will be
ruined if science, having destroyed theologic religion, can not put,
some other religion 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 prohibitions 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,
rectitude, 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 good is; and men would, as Mr. Spencer

* "Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews," p. 127.
t Page 27.

126 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 element in our life is our
sense of duty, coupled with obedience 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, appealing as it were to all onr most powerful passions
-to our fear, to our hope, and to our love. Hope gave it a meaning
to us, and love and fear gave it a sanction. The agnostics 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 man s moral nature be debased," and declares
that a wise man like Hume would merely " smile at their perplexities." \

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 adherents
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 improving, 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 constant motive by
sympathy. The basis of the other religion is not only different from
this, but opposed to it. Just as this demands that we turn away from
the universe, 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
Religion of the Unknowable ; and though many agnostics consider the
name fantastic, they one and all of them, if they resign the religion of
humanity, 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

* " Since the beginning, religion has had the all-essential office of preventing men from being
chiefly absorbed in the relative or the immediate, and of awaking them to a consciousness of
something beyond it." "First Principles," p. 100.

t " Lay Sermons," pp. 122, 124.

" CO WA RDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 1 2 T

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. Perhaps this request will
sound somewhat arbitrary and arrogant, 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 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, 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, tnen, 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, foolishly confers post-mortem deification on his
victims. He exactly repeats 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 as it is set forth in the annals of history ; . . . [and] when the positivists order men 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." *

Let us pause here for a moment and look about us, so as to see where
we stand. Up to a certain point the agnostics 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 contemptible. 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. If he could believe in
(rod 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 cowardly agnosticism. I agree with Prof. Huxley that, on
the grounds advanced by the bishop, this epithet " cowardly is
entirely undeserved ; but 1 propose to show him that, if not deserved on

* Pages 27, 28.

128 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

them, it is deserved on others, entirely unsuspected by himself. I
propose to show that his agnosticism is really cowardly, but cowardly
not because 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 theology, 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 being 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 authority 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 attempts to cover the life which he
professes to have stripped naked of superstition, are part and parcel of
the 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 useless for the purpose to which it is
despairingly applied, 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 dishonesty, 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 undertaking, 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 expressions 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 conception 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 generally, 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 " thatProf. 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 " ambition," 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 ;
^nd 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

" CO WA RDL Y A GNOSTICISM: 129

on considerations which lie somehow beneath the surface. If this
were not so, men would always have done their duty; and their his
tory would not have been " unutterably saddening," as Prof. Huxley
says it has been. What sort of considerations, 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 passive
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 community, 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 describing 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 reverence 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
" agnosticism 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, however, as he has told us already, lays it down as a
" fundamental axiom" that no conclusions are indisputable but such
as are "demonstrated or demonstrable." The conclusion, therefore,
that we ought to do our duty, and that we ought to experience what
Prof. Huxley calls " religion," 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 different terms, but still in
terms which we have Prof. Huxley s explicit warrant for using. Duly
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
painful struggle, often involving the extremity of self-sacrifice."

And now, such being the case, let us proceed to this crucial
question What is the meaning of the all-important word "ought" 9
It does not mean merely that on utilitarian grounds the conduct in
question can be defended 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 differ-

130 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

ent 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 recommended 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 humanity, absurd as their
beliefs may be, still have in their beliefs a means by which, theoreti
cally, duty could be thus recommended. According to them, our
sympathy with others is so keen, and the future in store for our
descendents 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 supposi
tions. 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 following the path of duty, is not only
little in itself, but there is no reason for supposing that it will con
tribute to anything great. On the contrary, it will only contribute to
something which, as a whole, is "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- sacri fee. The first seems to him obviously the most advanta
geous; 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 demonstrated 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 several
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 muse be put who uses it. A man, says Prof.
Huxley, ought to choose the way of pain and duty, because it con
duces in some small degree 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
consideration 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 uproarious contempt. If, then, we are not
likely to be nerved to our duty by a belief that duty done tends to pro
duce 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 "wilderness 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 glorious 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

"CO WARDLY A GNOSTICISM." 131

social grounds, to make duty binding, and give force to the moral
imperative, is merely a fragment of Mr. Harrison 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 per
haps for showing what duty is, but utterly 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
arguments, on which he mainly relies have no direct connection with
things social at all. They seek to create a religion, or to give a mean
ing 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 exist
ing self-reverence from destruction. How any human being who
pretends to accurate thinking can conceive 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
developed, could connect itself with practical duty passes my com
prehension. Influential and eminent men, however, declare that such
is their opinion ; and for that reason the arguments are worth ana
lyzing. Mr. Herbert Spencer is here in almost exact accord with
Prof. Huxley; we will therefore begin by referring to his way of
stating the matter.

" We are obliged," he says, " to regard every phenomenon as a man
ifestation of some power by which we are acted on ; though omni
presence is unthinkable, yet, as experience discloses no bounds to the
diffusion of phenomena, 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 consciousness of an incom
prehensible power, called omnipresent from inability to assign its
limits, is just that consciousness 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 absolute, 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 necessarianism."
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 man s soul," " impede his freedom," " paralyze
his energies," "debase his moral nature," and "destroy the beauty of
his life." f But, Prof. Huxley assures us, these dark fears are ground
less. There is indeed only one avenue of escape from them; but that
avenue truth opens to us.

"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 arising, . . . except that it
also is a name for an unknown and hypothetical cause or condition of states of consciousness ?

* "First Principles," p. 99.
t "Lay Sermons," pp. 122, 123, 127.

132 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

. . . And what is the dire necessity and iron law under which men groan ? Truly, most gratui
tously invented bugbears. I suppose if there be an fc 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 wo really know and can know about the latter phenomena ? Simply that in all human experi
ence stones have fallen to the ground under these conditions ; that we have not the smallest rea
son 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 writers. Each
states that the reality of the universe is unknowable; that just as
surely as matter is always one aspect 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 difference between them is,
that Mr. Spencer puts it positively, and Prof. Huxley negatively. Mr.
Spencer says that a consciousness of the unknowable nature of the uni
verse 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 con
nection with it, deepen and solemnize our own conception of our
selves. 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 others. . . . He is a descendant of the past ; he is a parent of the
future ; and his thoughts are as children born to him, which he may not carelessly let die. He,
like every other man, may properly consider 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 approach this. What a man
does or thinks, what he professes or acts out, can have no effect what
ever, conceivable to ourselves, beyond such effects as it produces
within the limits of this planet; and hardly any effect, worth 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 progress pf 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 anthropomorphism 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 inconsistent 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

* First Principles," p. 123.

" CO WA RDL Y A GNOSTICISM: 133

sympathies in a sense in which it has not implanted others ; else the
impulse to deny one s belief, and not to act on it, which many people
experience, would be authorized by the Unknowable as much as the
impulse to profess it, and to act on it. And according to Mr. Spen
cer s entire theory, according to Prof. Huxley s entire theory, accord
ing 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 inju
ries to our race as well as through our benefits to it. The attempt to
connect the well-being of humanity with any general tendency observa
ble 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 Verne s story-books. The destinies of mankind, 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 Aus-
trailia have to do with the question of home rule for Ireland.

Or even supposing the Unknowable to have any feeling in the mat
ter; 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. Supposing 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 influence action, it may yet be
said that the contemplation of the universe as the wonderful garment
of this unspeakable mystery, is calculated to put the mind into a seri
ous and devout condition, which would make it susceptible to the
solemn voice of duty. How any devotion so produced 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 contempla
tion of the Unknowable, from the agnostic s point of view, is not cal
culated to produce any sense of devoutness at all. Devoutness is
made up of three things, fear, love, and wonder; but were the agnos
tic s thoughts really controlled by his principles (which they are not)
not one of these emotions could 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 conform 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 i t, and blaspheme 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 absolutely safe

134 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

as a mouse in a hole is from a lion ? But there still remains the emo
tion of wonder to be considered. 1^ not the universe calculated to
excite our wonder ? From the agnostic point of view we must cer
tainly say No. 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 otherwise : 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 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 proclamation of it, regardless of
consequences. Whenever the agnostics are pressed as to the conse
quences of their principles, it is on this conception of duty that they
invariably fall back. Mr. Herbert Spencer, on his own behalf,
expresses 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 playing his right part in the world, knowing that if he can effect the change [in
belief] he aims at, well ; if not, well also ; though not so well.*

After what has been said already it will not be necessary 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 indisput
able." And truth thus understood it is "surely indisputable 7 that
we should cultivate. The reason is obvious. Such truth has certain
social consequences, 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 detiance of them. And what are its conse
quences, so far as we can see ? Prof. Huxley s answer is this : " I have
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 justifica
tion can there be for following this verace via 9 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 suppo
sition that the universe, or the Unknowable as manifested through
the universe, 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 devo
tion 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

* "First Principles," p. 123.

CO WA RDL Y A GNOSTICISM." 135

imputes to the Unknowable design, purpose, and affection. 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 unassailable,
sinks to a superstition more abject, more meaningless, and more
ridiculous than that of any African savage, 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 ques
tion 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 their negative arguments. While by positive arguments they
endeavor to prove that duty and religion are realities, by their nega
tive 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 posi
tively 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 pre
cisely similar. These arguments start with two admissions. Were all
our actions linked one to another by mechanical necessity, it is admit
ted that responsibility and duty would be no longer conceivable. Our
"energies," as Prof. Huxley admits, would be "paralyzed" by "utter
necessarianism." Further, 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 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 distinction 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 probably some
meaning. Let us try fairly to see what is the meaning in this. I take
it that the idea at the bottom of Prof. Huxley s mind is as follows :
Though all our scientific 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 banishment of spontaneity." *
And this applies, as he expressly says, to human thought and action as

* "Lay Sermons," p. 123.

136 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

much as to the flowering of a plant. Just as there can be no voluntary
action without volition, so there can be no volition without some
preceding cause. Accordingly, if a man s condition 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 released 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 absolutely certain for
all practical purposes, and the question of human freedom is nothing
if not practical. What then is gained is anything gained is the case
in any way altered by telling ourselves that, though there is certainty
in the case, there is no necessity? Suppose I 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 preceding 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 foolish 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 meaning 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 otherwise than as he does. The
universe may have no necessity 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 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 materialism] 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 mucn scorn . . . are found to be the more
marvelous the more they are investigated, and are also to be found to be in their natures absolutely
incomprehensible . . . will see that the course proposed [a reduction of all things to terms of
matterj does not imply a degradation 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 conclusive. 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

* "First Principles," p. 55C

"COWARDLY AGNOSTICISM? 1ST

the other. But the argument we are now considering, though
undoubtedly true in itself, has no bearing on this distinction what
ever. It is invoked to -show that religion aud 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.

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 conclu
sion which they invoke the arguments 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 dis
cussion, 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 con
duct. Now these reasons, on the -showing of the agnostics themselves,
are reasons that do not lie on the surface 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 ourselves 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. Per
haps I was wrong in taying so, but if we will but invert the supposed
tendency of religion, it can and it will supply us with a religion
indeed. It will supply us with a religion which, if we describe it in
theoretical language, we may with literal accuracy desciibe as the
religion of the devil of the devil, the spirit which denies. Instead of
telling us of duty, that it has a meaning 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 unfathomable 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 solar 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 Chris-

138 A GNOSTICISM A ND CHRIST LA NITY.

tian enabled him to silence the one, the religion of the agnostic will
forever silence the other. I say forever, but I -probably ought to cor
rect 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 expressed 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 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 theologic religion answer to the
principles and to the doctrines of agnosticism ? In contemporary dis
cussion the answer is constantly obscured, but it is of the utmost
importance that it should be given clearly. It says this: If we start
from and are faithful to the agnostic s fundamental principles, that
nothing is to be regarded as certain 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
liint of either a God or a purpose. Duty- and holiness, 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 religion 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 intellectual basis which theo
logic religion claims. Theologic religion does not say that within
limits the agnostic principle is not perfectly valid and has not led to
the discovery 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 prin
ciple 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. Agnosti
cism says nothing is certain which can not be proved by science.
Theologic religion says, nothing which is important can be. Agnos
ticism draws a line round its own province of knowledge, and beyond
that it declares is the unknown yoid 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 unsustaining
air, it lays its foundations it builds up its fabric of certainties. Sci
ence regards them as dreams, as an " unsubstantial pageant"; and yet
even to science religion can give some account of them. Prof. Hux
ley says, as we have seen, that " from the nature of ratiocination/ 7 it

"CO WARDLY A GNOSTICISM." 139

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 uniformity of nature. Keligion
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 mean
ing 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 certainties which I declare to be certain deny the existence
of God, deny man s freedom and immortality, and by no other con
ceivable hypothesis can you vindicate for man s life any possible mean
ing, or save it from the degradation 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 humiliation, to the cup of faith I have so con
temptuously cast away from me ? May not this cup pass from me ?
Is there salvation in no other ? And to this question, without pas
sion 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 cmdeness and nakedness, cleared from the rags with
which the cowardice of contemporary 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 certainty, 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 suc
cessfully. 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 suicide. I do not for a
moment admit that such an expression is justifiable, but, if I may use
it provisionally, and because it points to the temper at present preva
lent, 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.

XL
THE NEW REFORMATION.

A DIALOGUE.

BY MRS. HUMPHRY WARD.

IN a sitting room belonging to a corner house in one of the streets
running from the Strand toward the Embankment, a young man sat
reading on a recent winter afternoon. Behind him was an old-fash
ioned semicircular window, through which the broad gray line of the
river, the shipping on its stream, and the dark masses of building on
the opposite shore could be as plainly seen as the fading light per
mitted. But a foggy evening was stealing rapidly on, and presently
the young man dropped his book, and betook himself to his pipe, sup
plemented by a dreamy study of the fire. A sound was heard in
the little hall down-stairs; the reader started up, went to the door,
and listened; but all was quiet again, and he returned 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 mouih
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 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, sleepily blinked at
his master, and climbed into the chair beside him, where he had hard
ly established himself, after a long process of leisurely fidgeting,
when the hall-doorbell rang in good earnest, and Tony, hastily driven
down, 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 inter
minable, 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 cut
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 piercing eyes. The whole aspect was
singularly refined; all the lines were thin and prematurely worn; but
the expression was sparkling and full of charm, and the strong priest
ly 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, putting the new
comer into the chair he himself had just vacated. " Tony you im
pudence! out of that! Really, that dog and I have been living so
lon by ourselves that his manners, at any rate, are past praying for
and I should be sorry to answer for my own."

THE NEW REFORMATION. 141

"Well, and where have you been all this time, Merriman?" said the
man in the chair, looking up at his companion 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, Ronalds, are still at Mickledown, and it is
your vicar Raynham who has been consecrated to-day to this new
South African see?"

" Yes," said Ronalds, with a sigh. " Yes, it is a heavy loss to us
all. If ever there was a true and effective Churchman, it is Raynham.
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 forget 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 postponed your ordina
tion 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 in
born lovableness of the man.

Merriman named a small but famous German university.

"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 constrained 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 Lutheran pastors of a highly orthodox
kind, and find plenty of professors to suit them. I was attracted by
the reputation 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 a smile which pleasantly illumined the massive,
irregular features "how you used to laugh at me for a Teutophile

142 A GNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 En
glish 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 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 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 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 England."

A new flame of fire had wakened in the black, half shut eyes.
With such a growth of animation might Richard Rothe have de
scribed the tumults of heart and mind which drove him from Ger
many southward into the land of art, from Wtirtemberg to Rome,
from the narrow thought-world of Lutheran Pietism into the wide
horizons of a humaner faith.

" Historical translation /" said the other, looking up. "What do
you mean by that ?"

"Simply the transmutation of past witness into the language of the
present. That was the point, the problem, 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, religious
polemics, and so forth. And I had also before me twodifferentkinds
of modern treatment of it, an older and a newer ; the older represent
ed 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 Ranke, 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
Revolution. Yes ; but why? how? Put the development into words,
Well, it seemed to me like nothing in the world so much as the differ
ence 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 translation. 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, politics; that they lived, as we do, under govern
ing prepossessions ; that they had theories of life and the universe ;

THE NEW REFORMATION. 143

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 accent of truth. And all this was brought
about by nothing in the world fundamentally but improved transla
tion, by the use of that same faculty, half-scientific, half -imaginative,
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 himself up.
Ronalds looked at him, smiling at the strenuous 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 Carlyle anybody but Carlyle, fitting the whole of
history to the clothes- and force-philosophy? 3

" 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 sympa
thetic, 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
of this present provides him with sharper and more ingenious 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, physical 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 histo
ry has earned its psean 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 myself, 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 resting 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 responsibility. 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 un
derstand if I can."

" Well, then, you remember that, during the time I was hunting up
Goths, I had to break off divinity lectures. But the day after the

144 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

prize was sent in I remember gathering together the old books again,
and I took up specially Edersheim s Jesus the Messiah, which 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 bad 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 between. If Edersheim s ways of using
documents and conceiving 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 Christian documents
be treated differently could they be treated differently, in principle
from the documents of the declining empire, or of any other his
torical 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 Apol
ogetics, which had been interrupted for me by reading for the Es^ay.

Many times I recollect going to see X at Christchurch. He paw

I was in difficulties, aud talked to me a great deal and very kindly
about the impossibility of mere reason supplying a solution to any of
the prevalent doubts as to Christianity. One must wish to belie\ e, or
belief was impossible. He quoted Mansel s 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 t 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
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 disentangle miracle from history, the marvelous from the real, in a
document 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 historian to discover the historical under the miracu
lous, 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 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 Church History. Now, Baur s
main theories, you will remember, 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 perpetual antitheses between

THE NEW REFORMATION. 145

* Petrinismus and Paulinismus, Particularismus and Universa-
lisraus, had been brought out with a good deal of the dry old Oxford
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 historical or literary reality.
But it seemed to me you might say the same of Niebuhr 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, whatever else they might
be, Farrar s and Edersheirn 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, Ronalds,
do you blame me ?"

And the speaker broke off abruptly, his almost excessive 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 depends. How
much did it cost you, all this, Merriinan ? :

" 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? 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 between 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 influence, 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 service, and thinking with a kind of despair what
would happen to me if I were ever forced to give up the Sacrament.
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, looking at his friend with a smile which had no satire in it.

146 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

"Of course, every Christian knows than there are doubts and
difficulties in the path of the faith, and that he may succumb to
them if he pleases," said Ronalds, 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 agnosticism.
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 his 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 con
fided to him to be guarded with his life."

The musical vibrating voice sank with the closing words. Merri-
man returned to his old position by the fire, and was silent &
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 New
man among its sons, is conceived of as having nothing rational to
say for itself. The charge is absurd on the face of it. We say,
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 contains 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 condition 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 r
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 Lightfoot? 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 pro
fessors ? Are there no thinkers in the world but German ones ?
And what is the whole history of German criticism but a history of
brilliant failures, 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

THE NEW REFORMATION. 147

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 andPhilippians must go back again. Volkmar 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.
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 ; Volkmar 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 offspring. 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 his 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 magazines, or in conversation, as I come across it."

Merriman smiled.

"I suppose your answer would be the answer of four-fifths of Eng
lish clergymen, if the question was put to them. Well, then, I am
to take it for granted, Ronalds, that to you the whole of German
New Testament Wissenschaft, or, at any rate, what calls itself the
German critical school/ is practically indifferent. You regard it in
the words of a recent ( Quarterly article, as l an attack which has
* failed. Very 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 impression?

Ronalds 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 inspi
ration, 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 cleri
cal conceptions of the Old Testament? 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 Speak
er 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

148 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 ine that faith, which, indeed, in its broad
essential elements, you have never yet been able 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 arti
cle 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 concerned, the standpoint of * 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 Ecclesias
tical 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 glorifica
tion of criticism, especially, no doubt, in relation to the Old Testa
ment. Turn to the passages. I have the report here" and he drew
the volume toward him and turned up some marked pages. " First,
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. Robertson Smith,
" and never answered." To say that they have any connection with
rationalistic principles is simply to say that scholarship and rational
ism 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 his amazement that any mind could
be shaken by such arguments as those contained in the first book of
Colenso; or poor Wilberforce, with his contempt for the old and
often-refuted cavils brought forward by the assailants of the Pen
tateuch!

"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 triumph
antly, are neither few nor unimportant. Think of the Pentateuch,
Isaiah, Daniel, and Ecclesiastes ! 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 boast
ful criticism upon its own grounds, and to show its failure where it
claims to be most triumphant. 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
Essays and Reviews" on the young and uninstructed ! 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 certain-

THE NEW REFORMATION. 149

ty, judgment goes finally, even within the Church, not for the Angli
can 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 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 * (es
pecially in connection with the Old Testament) are to be taught
from the pulpit of the Church of England, and these results, as de
scribed 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 re
garded, 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 re
markable phenomenon. The question is, Whatjorces have brought
it about? 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 history
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 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,
Robertson Smith whom the Germans may fairly regard as the cap
tives 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 Pentateuchal controversy itself! It
begins in Holland with Spinoza, or in France with the oratorian
Richard Simon, two hundred years ago. Simon starts the literary
criticism 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 com
position, and so on first conceives it, in fact, as an historical prob
lem. Seventy years later comes the Montpellier physician, Jean
Astruc. He first notices the key to the whole enigma, the distinctive

150 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

use made of the words Elohlm and Jahveh. 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 Pentateuch.
That, he says scornfully, was the disease of the last century an
attack, in fact, which had failed ! Well, then Astruc s Conjec
tures pass into Germany, and meet there at first with very much the
same reception from German orthodoxy that English orthodoxy 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. Thence
forward 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 En
glish 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 religion
are everywhere conspicuous.

"Well, I don t know what you feel, Konalds, 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 En
glish 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 vic
tory of the same science, carried on by the same methods and with
the eaine ends, in a field of knowledge infinitely more precious and
vitalto English popular religion than the field of the Old Testament
before Germany imposes upon us not only her conceptions with re
gard to the history and literature of the Jews, but also those which
she has been elaborating for half a century with regard to that his
tory which is the natural heir and successor of the Jewish the his
tory of Christian origins? 1

"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 Testa
ment is much narrower, the material of a different quality, the evi
dence 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
Wissensehaft. Besides, what can be more unfair, Merriman, than to
speak as if the whole of this Wissenschaft were on one side? Nean-
der, 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

THE NEW REFORM A TION. 151

that a hostile science could suggest has been brought to bear against
the tower of our faith, and it stands more victoriously now than ever,
foursquare to all the winds that blow."

"And meanwhile every diocesan conference rings with the wail
over * infidel opinions," 1 said Merriman quietly. "It grows notori
ously more and more difficult to get educated men to take any inter
est in the services 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 secular
ism; and Archdeacon Farrar, preaching on the prosecution of the
Bishop of Lincoln, passionately appeals to all sections of Christians
to close their ranks, not against each other, but against the skepti
cism rampant among the cultivated class, and the religious indiffer
ence 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 authors-hip ai;d date of
the Pentateuch. One can run over the names Fritzsche, Scheibel,
Jahn, Dahler, Rosenmiiller, Herz, Hug, Sack, Pustkuchen, Kanne,
Meyer, Staudlin who now remembers one of them ? Of all their
books, says a French Protestant, sketching the controversy, il rtfest
reste que le souvenir d^un hero ique et impuissant effort. It is not
their work, but that of their opponents, which lias lived and penetra
ted, has transformed opinion and is molding the future. They rep
resented the exceptional, the traditional, the miraculous, and they
have had to give way to the school representing the normal, the his
torical, the rational. And yet not one of them but did not believe
that he had crushed DeWette and all his works ! Is not all proba
bility, 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 traditional, the
miraculous? For what we have been witnessing so far is the tri
umph of a principle, of an order of ideas, and this principle, this or
der, 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 disrespectful 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 clergymen, the examin
ers 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 unsuccessfully 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 realize the opinion of learned Germany
as to the effect of such a relation between the Church and the uni
versities as obtains here, on the progress of knowledge. The results
of our English system are precisely what you might expect great in
dustry and great success in textual criticism in all the branches of
what the Germans call the niedere l&itik, complete sterility, as far as

152 A GNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

the higher criticism that is to say, the effort to reconceive Chris
tianity iii the light of the accumulations of modern knowledge is
concerned.* \Vhen Pattison made his proposals as to the reorganiza
tion of studies at Oxford, he did not trouble himself to include therein
any proposals as to the theological faculty. Until the whole condi
tions 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 amount of exegetical work and a more or less respec
table crop of apologetic, and that it produced. But he did not leave
the subject without drawing up a comparison between the opportuni
ties of the theological student at Oxford and those of the same stu
dent at any German university a comparison which set one thinking.
His complaints of the quality and range of English theological re
search 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 variety, to appreciate Pattison s remark
in the ( Westminster, in 1857. I forget the exact words it is a mis
nomer to speak of German theology. It is more properly the theo
logy of the age - -the only scientific treatment of the materials \\hich
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 Christianity, are
now at the beginning of an epoch of popularization. The books which
record it have been studied in England, Scotland, and America with
increasing eagerness during the last fifteen years by a small class; in
the next fifteen y<. ars we sh ill probably see their contents reproduced
in English form and penetrating public opinion in a new and surpris
ing way. A minimum of readers among us read German, and trans
lations only affect a small and mostly professional stratum of opinion.
But when we get our own English lives of Christ and histories of the
primitive Church, written on German principles 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 hap
pened 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 Englishman 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 bril
liant historian, but an uncertain critic? Amiel, who, though a Gene-
vese, was brought up at- Berlin, exactly expresses German opinion
when he lays stress on the contradiction in Renan * between the liter
ary taste of the artist, which is delicate, individual and true, and the

*It, is clear that Merriman has here overlooked certain names he might have mentioned those
of Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sanday, for instance and outride the Church of England and the theological
faculties, those of R. W. Macan, 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. Horton, \yhose illogical and
interesting book on " The Inspiration of Scripture" 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 Mernman s mind is evidently possessed with
the thought of that atmosphere, that vast surrounding literature which in Germany supports and
generates the individual effort.

THE NEW REFORMATION. 15 3

opinions of the critic, which are borrowed, old-fashioned, and waver
ing. In the course of time this judgment becomes patent to Renan,
and the result appears in certain uncivil passages about young Ger
man professors in the preface to Les Evangiles, and elsewhere.
What matter? The face of Knowledge remains the same. Renan is
still, as Taine long ago remarked, the main expounder 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 struggling to
fuse Anglicanism with learning, as soon as it comes to serious differ
ences 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 general 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 Oarlyle, remains as true as ever. Let me
turn to the passage, I have pondered 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 eugendering 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 carry
ing 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 Renaiss
ance and that of the Classical Period. Like those earlier forces, it draws to itself all the best en
deavor of contemporary intelligence, it appears as they did in every civilized country, it represents
as they did " un des moments de Thistoire du monde."

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 my
self 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 Churchmen, that the whole movement of German
critical theology is an attack which has failed, that the orthodox
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 mat
ters 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 im
pulse from Hegel, his critical impulse from Schleiermacher. Philoso
phically he appealed from Hegel the orthodox conservative to Hegel
the thinker. You taught UP, he says in effect to his great teacher,
that there are two elements in all religion, the passing and the eter
nal, the relative and the absolute, the Vorstettung and the Begriff*

154 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

The particular system of dogmas put forward by any religion is the
Vorstellung or presentation, the JJegriff or idea is the underlying
spiritual reality eominon to it and presumably other system besides.
Why in Christianity have you gone so far toward identifying the
two? Why this exception V For what reasons have you allowed to
the Vorstellung in Christianity a value which belongs only to the
Begrifft Your reasons must rest upon the Christian evidence. But
the evidence can not bear the weight. Examine 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 genera
tion, the endless sell- 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. Something 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 mythopoaic faculty which from the Jesus of the
Galilean Lake evolved the Christ of Bethlehem, of the miracles, of
the resurrection, of theology. Thus the whole method was speculative
and a priori. There was in it a minimum of history, a minimum in
deed of literary criticism. Strauss criticised the contents of the
Christian literature without understanding the literary and historical
conditions which had produced it. Of the real life aud culture of the
men who wrote it, of the real historical conditions surrounding the
person of Jesus, he had almost as little notion as the dogmatic histo
rians who undertook to answer him.

" Luckily, however, not only orthodoxy, but the spirit of history,
took alarm, and from the revolt of history against 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 sci
entific knowledge of Christian sources was as yet wanting to theol
ogy; in the next, he was imbued with the conception that the Gfos-
pels had been till then placed in a false prospective both by Strauss
and New Testament criticism generally that not they, but the Pau
line Epistles, represent the earliest and directest testimony we have
to Christian belief. From this standpoint he began a complete re-ex
amination 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 hun
dred years had divided Christian literature between them, PO that all
its products, Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, are, in a sense, pam
phlets, controversial documents written in the interest of one or the

THE NEW REFORMATION. 155

other body of opinion. Well, here at last was history as compared
either with Strauss s philosophizing, or with the idyllic but unintelli
gible picture presented by the Early Church as it was drawn, say, by
Neander. But that 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
belonged to the early Christian life, as to all life, but especially 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 unat-
tempted; and in the second place, it was striving toward a more life
like 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 are presumably the product. Col
lateral knowledge poured in on all sides of the history of religions,
of Roman institutions, of the developments and ramifications of Hel
lenic and Hellenistic thought. The workers following Baur fell into
different groups; Hilgenfeld on the right, softening and moderating
Baur s more negative conclusions; Volkmar on the left, developing
them extravagantly, yet evolving in the process an amount of learn
ing, ingenuity, and suggestiveness which will leave its mark when his
specific conclusions as to the dates of the New Testament books are
no longer remembered. Meanwhile two oppositions to the Tubingen
school had shown themselves the dogmatic and the scientific. Of the
first not much need be said. Its most honored name is that of Bern-
hard 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 Ritschl
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 Ranke, and Mommsen, and Waitz, and
by the offshoots of this school in France and England, made them
selves felt more and more on theological ground. A new series of
biographies of Jesus began. Strauss, after an abstinence of twenty
years from theology, issued a new edition of the Leben Jesu, large
ly 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

156 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

thirty years before. Keira began his most interesting, most impor
tant, and most imperfect book, * Jesus von Nazara, and beyond the
frontier Renan brought the results of two generations labor within
the reach of the whole educated world by the historical brilliance
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 extraordinary industry, largely
read in Germany and beginning to be largely read here. Well as
compared with the state of knowledge thirty years ago, when the
Tubingen 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 care
ful 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 advances, the altered aspects of
knowledge. Why have we come to know more of that problem of
the rise of Catholicism, to which Baur devoted his life, than Baur
could ever know ? Simply because we have grown more realistic,
more elastic, the historical temper has developed, we have acquired
the power of transplanting ourselves into other times. Great histo
rians men like Ranke have taught us this. Then we have realized
that all history is one, that religion and church history is a mere sec
tion of the whole history of a period, and can not be understood ex
cept in relation to that whole. Arid so on. My whole experience
in Germany was an illustration 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 grappling 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
subscription or articles, or the requirements of examinations. Our
own theology can show nothing like it; the most elementary condi
tions of such work are lacking among us; it will take the effort of a
generation to provide them.

"Two books in particular occur to me if you are not weary of
my disquisition! as representing this most recent phase of develop
ment; Schurer s Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi, and Hausrath s Neutestamentliche 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 mate
rials, only handled in a more consecutive 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 Essene, Sadducee and Hellenist,

THE NEW REFORMATION. 157

standing out with the dress and utterance and gesture native to each;
and in their midst the figure which is at last becoming real, intelligi
ble, human, as it has never yet been, 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 us looking back with
wonder over the long, long road. But there is no break in it, no
serious deviation. From the beginning till now the driving impulse
has been the same the impulse to understand, the yearning toward
a unified and rationalized 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 re
placed the old losses by a truer history, a fuller and exacter range of
conceptions. An attack* which has * failed. Could any descrip
tion 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 immediate prelude to some fresh and imposing devel
opment 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 coun
try 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 investigation 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 trust
worthiness of Livy have been corrected here arid therein a more con
servative 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 maybe
recovered for the life of Buddha and the primitive 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 Roman 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 ! !

Ronalds 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 cannot be profitably compared on
equal terms with any other series of phenomena. In the second, the
variations which do not substantially affect the credit of -scholarship
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 limi
ted. To throw back the Gospels from the second century, where
Baur and Volkmar 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 writing mythical and heresay accounts, the critic himself

158 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

brings us back into the presence of either eye witnesses, or at any
rate the reporters of eye witnesses, lie has treated the testimony as
he pleased, has subjected it to every harsh, irreverent test his ingen
uity could suggest, and, instead of 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 cannot
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 fragment 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 reasonableness and liv-
ingness of her own modern Christianity ! On the contrary, Ronalds,
men like Harnack and Hausrath have no quarrel with Christian tes
timony, 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-
cessitiesof culture, certain lawsof thought; that in a time which had
no conception of history or of accurate historical reporting in our
sease a time which produced the allegorical interpretations of Alex
andria, the Rabbinical interpretations of St. Paul and the Gospels,
the historical methods of Josephus, the superstitions of Justin and
Papias, the childish criticism and information of Irenseus, 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
lusion. Led by experience gathered not only from Christian history,,
but from all history, they expect beforehand what the Christian doc
uments reveal. They see a sense of history so weak that, in preserv
ing the tradition of the Lord, it can riot keep clear and free from
manifest contradiction 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 Resur
rection and the Ascension; 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 discrep
ancies. 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 nationalist hope, in the mind of
the first Christian period, the bulk of which he knows to be much
older than the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and wherein he can
trace the elements which conditioned the activity of the Master, and
colored all the thoughts of his primitive followers about him. He
measures the strength of these fantastic or poetical conceptions of
nature and history by the absence or weakness, in the society pro
ducing them, of that controlling logical and scientific instinct which
it has been the work of succeeding centuries, of the toil of later

THE NEW REFORMATION. 159>

generations, to develop in mankind; and when he sees the passion of
the Messianic hope, or the Persian and Parsee conceptions of an un
seen world which the course of history had grafted on Judaism, or
the Hellenistic speculation with which the Jewish Dispersion was
everywhere 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 natural 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 history of religion, of miracle, of sacred biography, of
inspired books, to see the same forces and the same processes repeat
ing themselves all over the religious field.

"So in the same way with the penetration and success of Christi
anity the * moral miracle, which is to convince us of Christian dog
ma, when the appeal to physical miracle 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
systems 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 poetry, 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 institutions, the subtleties of Greek thought,
and, although in every religious history, nay in every individual his
tory, there remain puzzles and complexities which belong to the mys
teries of the human organization, and which no critical process how
ever sympathetic can ever completely fathom, Rtill 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 Christian 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 instinct sharp, his judgment clear. It is this con
stant use indeed of the comparative method which distinguishes him
from the orthodox critic, which divides, say a German like Harnack
or Hausrath from an Englishman like Westcott. The German is
perpetually bringing into connection and relation ; the Englishman,
like Westcott, on the contrary, under the influence of Mansel s
doctrine of 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 understand the litera
ture you profess to judge ! : cried Rolands ; " as if Westcott, wha
knows everything, and is forever bringing Christianity into relation
with the forces about it, can be accused of isolating it ! A passage

160 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

from the Gospel of the Resurrection comes into my mind at
the moment which is conclusive : * Christianity is not an isolated
system, but the result of a long preparation Christianity can not be
regarded alone and isolated from its antecedents. To attempt to
separate Christianity from Judaism 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 philoso
phical 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 dis
cuss the speculation and ethics of early Christendom without
reference to surrounding conditions. So much the progress of knowl
edge 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 comparing the narratives of healing, of rising from the
dead, of visions, and so on, which meet us in the New Testament, by
the help of narratives of a similar kind to be found either in con
temporary 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, and 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, interesting, 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 Ronalds at last broke, looking at his
friend with emotion in every feature.

" 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
prevented the convictions of liberal theology from mingling with the
life and institutions of the people. Religion 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 di
vorce between common life and speculative belief which affects the
greater part of the cultivated class. The destructive forces of scien
tific theology have made them indifferent to dogma and formulae, and
reaction in Church and State has made it impossible for the new spir
itual conceptions which belong to that theology to find new forms of
religious action and expression."

" Religious action ! said Ronalds, bitterly. " What religion is
possible to men who regard Christ as a good man with mistaken no
tions on many points, and God as an open question ?"

THE NEW REFORMATION. 161

"For me at the present moment," replied Merriman, with a singular
gentleness, and showing in the whole expression of eye and feature,
as he involuntarily moved nearer to his companion, a wish to soothe
pain, a yearning 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 man, in whom, through
all human and necessary impertection, 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 tome,"
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, Ronalds, are discussing whether a certain com
bination is possible, that combination is slowly and silently establish
ing itself in human life all about you ! You dispute and debate
solmtur ambulando. All over the world, in quiet German towns, in
Holland, in the circles which represent some of the best life of France,
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 around 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 compro
mise of two forces, the scientific and religious. In the English Re
formed 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 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? -and the tone changed to one of yearning and pas
sion. u 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 multitude and so ignoring all the teachings of his
tory 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 suoh 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, Ronalds inwardly more at rest than for years.
This study of mine, which at first seemed to have swept all, has given
me back much. God though I can find no names for Him is more

162 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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 Jerusa
lem, 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 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 pinna
cle; but history, led by the blind and yet divine instinct of the race,
has lifted this life from the ma^s of lives, and in it we Europeans see
certain ethical and spiritual essentials concentrated 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 compaiison 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, it is to my
mind merely wasteful and impatient. We must submit to the educa
tion 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 feel
ing which goes back, after all, through all the overgrowths of dream
and speculation, to that strongest of all the forces of human life the
love of man lor 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 two men remained silent awhile. Then Ronalds 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 yet," said Merri man, smiling.

Ronalds shook his head, stayed chatting awhile on indifferent sub
jects, and went.

THE END

THE

Humboldt Library of Science

is the only publication of its kind, the only one containing popular
scientific works at low prices. For the most part it contains only

works of acknowledged excellence, by authors of the first rank
in the world of science. Such works are landmarks destined to
stand forever in the history of Mind. Here, in truth, is "strong
meat for them that are of full age."

In this series are well represented the writings of

DARWIN, HUXLEY, SPENCER, TYNDALL, PROCTOR, CLIFFORD,

CLODD, BAGEHOT, BAIN, BATES, WALLACE, TRENCH,

ROMANES, GRANT ALLEN, BALFOUR STEWART,

GEIKIE, HINTON, SULLY, FLAMMARION,

PICTON, WILLIAMS, WILSON,

and other leaders of thought in our time. As well might one be a
mummy in the tomb of the Pharaohs as pretend to live the life of the
nineteenth century without communion of thought with these its
Master Minds.

Science has in our time invaded every domain of thought and research,
throwing new light upon the problems of

PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, MAN S HISTORY,
GOVERNMENT, SOCIETY, MEDICINE.

In short, producing a revolution in the intellectual and moral world.
No educated person, whatever his calling, can afford to keep himself out
of the main current of contemporary scientific research and exposition.

The price of the several numbers is fifteen cents each (double
numbers thirty cents ), which is less than one tenth what is charged
by London and New York publishers for exactly the same reading-
matter.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY is published monthly, and

mailed free to any address in the United States, Canada, or Mexico, on
receipt of $1.50. To Great Britain, France, Japan, &c , at $1.75 a year.

Subscribers get twelve numbers as they appear, single or double.
Subscriptions can commence at any time within the current year.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO..

28 Lafayette Place, New York,

CATALOGUE

THE

LlBR/I^Y

POPULAR SCIENCE.

Containing the works of the foremost scientific writers of the age. The Great
Classics of Modern Thought. Strong meat for them that are of full age.

Price, Fifteen Cents per number, except as otherwise noted in this catalogue.

No. 1.

LIGHT SCIENCE FOR LEISURE HOURS.-A Series of Familiar
Essays on Scientific Subjects, Natural Phenomena, Ac. By

RICHARD A. PROCTOR, B.A., Camb., F.R.A.S., author of "The Sun," "Other
Worlds than Ours," "Saturn," &c.

Strange Discoveries respecting

the Aurora.
The Earth a Magnet.
Our Chief Timepiece losing

Time.

Encke the Astronomer.
Venus on the Sun s Face.
Recent Solar Researches.
Government Aid to Science.
American Alms for British

Science.

The Secret of the North Pole.
Is the Gulf Stream a Myth?
Floods in Switzerland.

CONTENTS.

The Tunnel through Mont Cenis.
The Greatest Sea -Wave ever

known.

The Usefulness of Earthquakes.
The Earthquake in Peru.
A Great Tidal Wave.
Deep- Sea Dredgings.
Tornadoes.
Vesuvius.

The Forcing Power of Rain.
A Shower of Snow-Crystals.
Long Shots.
Influence of Marriage on the

Death-Rate.

The Topographical Survey of

India.
A Ship Attacked by a Sword-

lish.

The Safety-Lamp.
The Dust we have to Breathe.
Photographic Ghosts.
The Oxford and Cambridge

Rowing Styles.
Betting on Horse-Races; 01%

the State of the Odds.
Squaring the Circle.
The New Theory of Achilles

Shield.

No. 2.

THE FORMS OF WATER IN CLOUDS AND RIVERS, ICE AND

GLACIERS. B 7 J HN TYNDALL, LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of Natural Philos
ophy in the Royal Institution, London. With nineteen illustrations drawn
under the direction of the author.

Clouds, Rains, and Rivers.
The Waves of Light.
Oceanic Distillation.
Tropical Rains.
Architecture of Snow.
Architecture of Lake Ice.
Ice Pinnacles, Towers, and
Chasms.

CONTENTS.

The Motion of Glaciers.
Likeness of Glacier Motion to

River Motion.
Changes of Volume of Water

by Heat and Cold.
The Molecular Mechanism of

Water-congelation.
Sea Ice and Icebergs.

Ancient Glaciers of Switzer
land.

Ancient Glaciers of England,
Scotland. Wales, and Ireland.

The Glacial Epoch.

Glacier Theories.

The Blue Veins of Glaciers.

Crevasses.

No. 3.

PHYSICS AND POLITICS: An Application of the Principles of
Natural Selection and Heredity to Political Society .-By WALTER

BAGEHOT, author of "The English Constitution."

c o :s 7 T E N T s.

Chapter I. The Preliminary Age.
Chapter II. The Use of Conflict.
Chapter III. Nation-making.
Chapter IV. Nation-making.

Chapter V. The Age of Discussion.
Chapter VI. Verifiable Progress Politically Con-
sidered.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 4.

EVIDENCE AS TO MAN S PLACE IN NATURE.-By THOMAS H.

HUXLEY, F.K.S., F.L.S. With numerous illustrations.

CONTEXTS.

Chapter I. The Natural History of the Manlike
Apes.

Chapter II. The Relations of Man to the Lower

Animals.
Chapter III. Some Fossil Remains of Man.

No. 5.

EDUCATION: INTELLECTUAL, MORAL, AND PHYSICAL.- By

HERBERT SPENCER.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. What Knowledge is of Most Worth ?
Chapter II. Intellectual Education.

Chapter III. Moral Education.
Chapter IV. Physical Education.

No. 6.

TOWN GEOLOGY. By the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, F.L.S., F.G.S., Canon of
Chester.

CONTENTS.

Chapter L The Soil of the Field.
Chapter II. The Pebbles in the Street.
Chapter III. The Stones in the Wall.

Chapter IV. The Coal in the Fire.
Chapter V. The Lime in the Mortar.
Chapter VI. The Slates on the Roof.

No. 7.

THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.- By BALPOIJR STEWART, LL.D.,
F.E.S., Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Owens College, Manchester, Eng.
With an Appendix "The Correlation of Nervous and Mental Forces," by Prof.
ALEXANDER BAIN.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. What is Energy?

Chapter II. Mechanical Energy and its Change

into Heat.
Chapter III. The Forces and Energies of Nature:

the Law of Conservation.
Chapter IV. Transmutations of Energy.

Chapter V. Historical Sketch: the Dissipation

of Energy.
Chapter VI. The Position of Life.

APPENDIX. The Correlation of Nervous and
Mental Forces.

No. 8.

THE STUDY OF LANGUAGES BROUGHT BACK TO ITS

TRUE PRINCIPLES. By C. MARCEL, Knt. Leg. Hon., author of "Language
as a Means of Mental Culture," &c.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Subdivision and Order of Study.
Chapter II. The Art of Reading.
Chapter III. The Art of Hearing.
Chapter IV. The Ail Speaking.

Chapter V. The Art of Writing.
Chapter VI. On Mental Culture.
Chapter VII. On Routine.

No. 9.

THE DATA OF ETHICS.- By HERBERT SPENCER.

CONTENTS.

Chapter 1. Conduct in General.
Chapter II. The Evolution of Conduct.

Chapter III. Good and Bad Conduct.

Chapter IV. Ways of Judging Conduct.
Chapter V. The* Physical View.

Chapter VI. The Biological View.

Chapter VII. The Psychological View.
Chapter VIII. The Sociological View.

Chapter IX. Criticisms and Explanations.
Chapter X. The Relativity of Pains and Pleas-
Chapter XI. Egoism versus Altruism. [ures.
Chapter XII. Altruism versus Egoism.
Chapter XIII. Trial and Compromise.
Chapter XIV. Conciliation.
Chapter XV. Absolute Ethics and Relative Eth
Chapter XVI. The Scope of Ethics. [ics.

Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 10.

THE THEORY OF SOUND IN ITS RELATION TO MUSIC.-By

Professor PIETRO BLASERNA, of the Royal University of Borne. With numerous
woodcuts.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Periodic Movements: Vibration.
Sonorous Vibration. Vibration of a Bell. Vibra
tion of a Tuning-fork. Vibration of a String. Of
Plates and Membranes. Vibration of Air in a
Sounding -pipe. Method of the Monometric
Flame. Conclusion.

Chapter II. Transmission of Sound. Propaga
tion in Air. In Water and Other Bodies. Ve
locity of Sound in Air.- In Water and Other Bodies.
Reflection of Sound. Echo.

Chapter III. Characteristics of Sound, and Dif
ference between Musical Sound and Noise. Loud-
ness of Sound, and the Various Causes on which
it depends. Principle of the Superposition of
Sounds. Sounding-boards and Resonators.

Chapter IV. Measure of the Number of Vibra
tions. Pitch of Sounds : Limit of Audible Sounds,
of Musical Sounds, and of the Human Voice.
The "Normal Pitch." Laws of the Vibrations of
a String, and of Harmonics.

Chapter V. Musical Sounds. Law of Simple
Ratio. Unison: interference. Beats: their ex
planation. Resultant Notes. Octaves, and other
Harmonics. Consonant Chords and their limits.
The Major fifth, fourth, sixth, and third: the
Minor third and sixth. The Seventh Harmonic.

Chapter VI. Helmholtz s Double Siren. Appli
cation, of the Law of Simple Ratio to three or
more notes. Perfect Major and Minor Chords:
their nature. r Their inversion.

Chapter VII. Discords. The Nature of Music
and Musical Scales. Ancient Music. Greek
Scale. Scale of Pythagoras. Its decay. Ambro-
sian and Gregorian Chants. Polyphonic Music:
Harmony The Protestant Reformation. Pales-
trina. Change of the Musical Scale. The Tonic
or Fundamental Chord. The Major Scale. Mu
sical Intervals. The Minor Scale. Key and Trans
position. Sharps and Flats. The Temperate
Scale: its inaccuracy. The Desirability of aban
doning it.

Chapter VIII. Quality or timbre of Musical
Sounds. Forms assumed by the Vibrations.
Laws of Harmonics. Quality or timbre of Strings
and of Instruments. General Laws of Chords.
Noises accompanying Musical Sounds. Quality
or timbre of Vocal Musical Sounds.

Chapter IX. Diffei-ence between Science and
Art. Italian and German Music. Separation of
the two Schools. Influence of Paris. Conclusion.

Nos. 11 and 12.

Double number, 3O cents.

THE NATURALIST ON THE RIVER AMAZONS.-A Record of
Adventures, Habits of Animals, Sketches of Brazilian and
Indian Life, and Aspects of Nature under the Equator, during

eleven years of travel. By HENRY WALTER BATES, F.L.S., Assistant
Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society of England.

CONTENTS.
(In part.)

Chapter I. Arrival at Para Aspect of the
country First walk in the suburbs of Para Birds.
lizards, and insects Leaf-carrying ant Sketch of
the climate. history, and present condition of Para.

Chapter II. The swampy forest of Para A Por
tuguese landed proprietor Life of a Naturalist
under the Equator The dryer virgin forests Re
tired creeks Aborigines.

Chapter III. The Tocantins River and Cameta
Sketch of the River Grove of fan-leaved palms
Native life on the Tocantins.

Chapter V. Caripi and the Bay of Marajo
Negro observance of Christmas A German family
Bats Ant-eaters Humming-birds Domestic
life of the inhabitants Hunting excursion with
Indians White ants.

Chapter VI. The Lower Amazons Modes of
traveling on the Amazons Historical sketch of the
early explorations of the river First sight of the
great river Flat-topped mountains.

Chapter VII. Ville Nova, its inhabitants. forest,
and animals A rustic festival River Madeira
Mura Indians Yellow Fever.

Chapter VIII. Santarem Manners and customs

of the inhabitants Sketches of Natural History
palms, wildfruit-trees,mining-wasps, mason- wasps,
bees.and sloths.

Chapter IX. Voyage up the Tapajps Modes of
obtaining fish White Cebus. and habits and dispo
sitions of Cebi monkeys Adventure with anaconda

Smoke-dried monkey Boa-constrictor Hya-
cinthine macaw Descent of river to Santarem.

Chapter X. The Upper Amazons Desolate ap
pearance of river in the flood season Mental con
dition of Indians Floating pumice-stones from
the Andes Falling banks Ega and its inhabitants
The four seasons of the Upper Amazons.

Chapter XI. Excursions in the neighborhood of
Ega Character and customs of the Passe Indians
Hunting rambles with natives in the forest.

Chapter XII. Animals of the neighboi hood of
Ega Scarlet-faced monkeys- Owl-faced night-apes

Marmosets Bats Birds Insects Pendulous
cocoons Foraging ants Blind ants.

Chapter XIII. Excursions beyond Ega Steam
boat traveling on the Amazons Various tribes of
Indians Descent to Para Great changes at Para
Departure for England.

*

*

This is one of the most charming books of travel ever written, and is both interesting and in
structive. It is a graphic description of "a country of perpetual summer, where trees yield flower and
fruit all the year round," "a region where the animals and plants have been fashioned in Nature s
choicest moulds."

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 13.

MIND AND BODY: The Theories of their Relation.- By ALEXANDER

BAIN, LL.D., Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Question Stated.
Chapter II. Connection of Mind and Body.
Chapter III. The Connection Viewed as Corre
spondence, or Concomitant Variation.

Chapter IV. General Laws of Alliance of Mind

and Body. The Feelings and the Will.
Chapter V. The Intellect.
Chapter VI. How are Mind and Body united?
Chapter VII. History of the Theories- of the Soul.

No. 14.

THE WONDERS OF THE HEAVENS.- By CAMILLB FLAMMARION.-
Translated from the French by Mrs. NORMAN LOCKYER. With thirty-two
Actinoglyph Illustrations.

CONTENTS.

BOOK FIRST.

Chapter I. Night.

Chapter II. The Heavens.

Chapter III. Infinite Space. [verse.

Chapter IV. General Arrangement of the Uni-

Chapter V. Clusters and Nebulae.

Chapter VI. The Milky Way. .

BOOK SECOND.

Chapter I. The Sidereal World.

Chapter II. The Northern Constellations.

Chapter III. The Zodiac.

Chapter IV. Southern Constellations.

Chapter V. The Number of the Stars. Their
Distances.

Chapter VI. Variable Stars. Temporary Stars.
Stars suddenly visible or invisible.

Chapter VII. Distant Universes. Double, Mul
tiple, and Colored Suns.

BOOK THIRD.

Chapter I. The Planetary System.
Chapter II. The Sun.

Chapter III.-
Chapter IV.-
Chapter V.-
Chapter VI.-
Chapter VII.-
Chapter VIII. -
Chapter IX.-
Chapter X.-
Chapter XL-
Chapter XII.-

-The Sun (continued).

- Mercury.
-Venus.

- Mars.

- Jupiter.

- Saturn.

- Uranus.
-Neptune.

- Comets.

Comets (continued).

BOOK FOURTH.

Chapter I. The Terrestrial Globe.

Chapter II. Proofs that the Earth is round.

That it turns on an axis, and revolves round

the Sun.

Chapter III. The Moon.
Chapter IV. The Moon (continued).
Chapter V. Eclipses.

BOOK FIFTH.

Chapter I. The Plurality of Inhabited Worlds.
Chapter II. The Contemplation of the Heavens.

No. 15.

LONGEVITY: THE MEANS OF PROLONGING LIFE AFTER

MIDDLE AGE. By JOHN GARDNER, M.D.

CONTENTS.

What is the Natural Duration of Human Life ?

Is the Duration of Life in any degree within our
power ?

Some General Considerations respecting Ad
vanced Age.

Causes of Neglect of Health.

Is Longevity Desirable ?

Physiology of Advanced Age.

Heredity.

The Means of Ameliorating and Retarding the
Effects of Age.

Recuperative Power. What is Life?

Water : its bearing on Health and Disease.

Mineral Waters.

Stimulants Spirituous and Malt Liquors and
Wine.

Climate, its Effects on Longevity.

Disregarded Deviations from " Health in Aged
Persons. (a). Faulty Nutrition General At
tenuation. (b). Local Failure of Nutrition.
(c). Obesity.

Pain the Use and Misuse of Narcotics. ().
Dolor-Senilis. (b). Narcotics. (c). Sarsapa-
rilla and other Remedial Agents.

Gout New Remedies for.

Rheumatism. Lumbago.

Limit to the Use of Narcotics.

The Stomach and Digestion.

The Liver.

The Kidneys and Urine. Simple Overflow Al-
bxuninous Urine. Bright s Disease. Miiddy
Urine, Gravel, Stone. Irritable Bladder.
Diabetes.

The Lower Bowels.

The Throat. Air-passages. Lungs. Bronchitis.

The Heart.

The Brain Mind, Motive Power, Sleep, Paralysis.

Established Facts respecting Longevity.

Diseases Fatal after Sixty.

Summary. An Experiment Proposed.

Appendix. Czitises of Prematm-e Death.

Notes on some Collateral Topics. (a). Longevity
of the Patriai chs and in Ancie7it Times. (bj.
Flourens on Longevity. (c) . Popular Errors
respecting Longevity. (d). Waste of Human
Life. (e). Moral and Religious Aspects of
Longevity. (/). Importance of Early Treat
ment of * Disorders. (g). The Bones of Old
People Brittle. (h). Condition of very Old
People. (i). One Hundred and Five Years the
Extreme Limit of Human Life. (j). A Case
of Recuperation. (k). On the Water used in
Country Towns. (1). Pure Aerated Water.
(m). Anticipations. (11. ) Adulteration of
Food, &c., its Effects on Human Life. (o).
Cases of Prolonged Life. (p). Appliances
Useful to Aged Persons for Immediate Relief
of Suffering.

Published montlily. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

:NO. 16.

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES; or, The Causes of the Phenomena

of Organic Nature. A Course of Six Lectures. By THOMAS H. HUXLEY,
F.R.S., F.L.S., Professor of Natural History in the Jermyn Street School of
Miues, London.

Chapter I. The Present Condition of Organic
Nature. [ture.

Chapter II. The Past Condition of Organic Na-

Chapter III. The Method by which the Causes of
the Present and Past Conditions of Organic
Nature are to be discovered. The Origination
of Living Beings.

Chapter IV. The Perpetuation of Living Beings.
Hereditary Transmission and Variation.

CONTENTS.

Chapter V. The Conditions of Existence as af
fecting the Perpetuation of Living Beings.

Chapter VI. A Critical Examination of the Po
sition of Mr. Darwin s work on "The Origin
of Species." in relation to the Complete The
ory of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic
Nature.

APPENDIX. Criticisms on Darwin s "Origin of
Species."

No. 17.

PROGRESS: ITS LAW AND CAUSE.- With other Disquisitions, viz.,
The Physiology of Laughter. Origin and Function of Music. The Social
Organism. Use and Beauty. The Use of Anthropomorphism. By HERBERT

SPENCER.

No. 18.

LESSONS IN ELECTRICITY. To which is added an Elementary

Lecture on Magnetism. By JOHN TYNDALL, D.C.L.,LL.D., F.R.S., Pro
fessor of Natural Philosophy in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. With
Sixty Illustrations.

CONTENTS.

Introduction.

Historic Notes.

The Art of Experiment.

Electric Attractions.

Discovery of Conduction and Insulation.

The Electroscope.

Electrics and Non-Electrics.

Electric Repulsions.

Fundamental Law of Electric Action.

Double or "Polar" Character of the Electric

Force.

What is Electricity?
Electric Induction.
The Electrophorus.
Action of Points and Flames.

The Electrical Machine.
The Leyden Jar.
Franklin s Cascade Battery.
Leyden Jars of the Simplest Form.
Ignition by the Electric Spark.
Duration of the Electinc Spark.
Electric Light in Vacuo.
Lichtenb erg s Figures.
Surface Compared with Mass.
Physiological Effects of the Electrical Discharge.
Atmospheric Electricity.
The Returning Stroke.
The Leyden Battery.

APPENDIX. An Elementary Lecture on Mag
netism.

No. 19.

FAMILIAR ESSAYS ON SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS, viz., Oxygen in

the Sun. Sun-spot, Storm, and Famine. New Ways of Measuring the Sun s
Distance. Drifting Light-waves. The New Star which faded into Star-mist.
Star-grouping, Star-drift, and Star-mist. By EICHARD A. PROCTOR.

No. 20.

THE ROMANCE OF ASTRONOMY.- By R. KALLEY MILLER, M. A, Fel
low and Assistant Tutor of St. Peter s College, Cambridge, England. With an
Appendix by RICHARD A. PROCTOR.

The Planets.
Astrology.
The Moon.
The Sun.

CONTENTS.

The Comets.

Laplace s Nebular Hypothesis.

The Stars.

The Nebulae.

APPENDIX.

The Past History of our Moon.
Ancient Babylonian Astrogony.

THE HTTMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 21.

ON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE.-With Other Essays, viz.,
The Scientific Aspects of Positivism. A Piece of Chalk. Geo
logical Contemporaneity. A Liberal Education. By THOMAS H.

HUXLEY, F.R.S., F.L.S.

No. 22.

SEEING AND THINKING. B y WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD, F.R.S., Pro
fessor of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics in University College, London,
and sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

CONTENTS.

The Eye and the Brain.
The Eye and Seeing.

The Brain and Thinking.
Of Boundaries in General.

No. 23.

SCIENTIFIC SOPHISMS. A Review of Current Theories con
cerning Atoms, Apes, and Men. By SAMUEL WAINWBIGHT, D.D.,
author of Christian Certainty," "The Modern Avernus," &c.

CONTENTS.

Chapter VIII. The Three Beginnings.
Chapter IX. The Three Barriers.
Chapter X. Atoms.
Chapter XI. Apes.
Chapter XII. Men.
Chapter XIIL Animi Mundi.

Chapter. I. The Right of Search.

Chapter II. Evolution.

Chapter III. "A Puerile Hypothesis."

Chapter IV. "Scientific Levity."

Chapter V. A House of Cards.

Chapter VI. Sophisms.

Chapter VII. Protoplasm.

No. 24.

POPULAR SCIENTIFIC LECTURES, viz., On the Relation of Optics
to Painting. On the Origin of the Planetary System. On
Thought in Medicine. On Academic Freedom in German Uni
versities. By H. HELMHOLTZ, Professor of Physics in the University of

Berlin.
No. 25.

THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS.- In two parts.-On Early Civiliza
tions.- On Ethnic Affinities, &C.~By GEORGE EAWLINSON, M.A.,
Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford.

CONTENTS.

PART

Chapter L-
Chapter II.-

Chapter III.-

Chapter IV.-

Chapter V.-

Chapter VI.-

Chapter VII.-
Chapter VIII.-

Chapter IX.

I. EARLY CIVILIZATIONS.

- Introduction.

-On the Antiquity of Civilization

in Egypt.
-On the Antiquity of Civilization

at Babylon.
-On the Date and Character of

Phoenician Civilization.

- On the Civilizations of Asia Minor

Phrygia, Lydia, Lycia, Troas.
-On the Civilizations of Central Asia

Assyria, Media. Persia, India.
-On th e Civi] ization of the Etruscan s
-On the Civilization of the British

Celts.
Results of the Inquiry.

PART II. ETHNIC AFFINITIES IN THE
ANCIENT WORLD.

Chapter I. The Chief Japhetic Races.
Chapter II. Subdivisions of the Japhetic Races,,

Gomer and Javan.

Chapter III. The Chief Hamitic Races.
Chapter IV. Subdivisions of Cush.
Chapter V. Subdivisions of Mizraim and

Canaan.

Chapter VI. The Semitic Races.
Chapter VII. On the Subdivisions of the Semitic

Races.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 26.

THE EVOLUTIONIST AT LARGE. --By GR ANT ALLEN.

CONTENTS.

Chapter L-

Chapter II.-

Chapter III.-

Chapter IV.-

Chapter V.-

Cliapter VI.-

Chapter VII.-
Chapter VIII.-

Chapter IX.-

Chapter X.-

Chapter XI.-

Microscopic Brains.

A Wayside Berry.
-In Summer Fields.

A Sprig of Water Crowfoot.

Slugs and Snails.

A Study of Bones.
-Blue Mud.

Cuckoo-pint.

Berries and Berries.
Distant Relations.
Among the Heather.

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

XII. Speckled Trout.
XIII. Dodder and Broomrape.
XIV. Dog s Mercury and Plantain.
XV. Butterfly Psychology.
XVI. Butterfly ^Esthetics.
XVII. The Origin of Walnuts.
XVIII. A Pretty Land-shell.
XIX. Dogs and Masters.
XX. Blackcock.
XXL Bindweed.
XXIL On Cornish Cliffs.

No. 27.

THE HISTORY OF LANDHOLDING IN ENCLAND.-By

FISHER, F.R.H.S.

JOSEPH

I. The Aborigines.
II. The Romans,
III. The Scandinavians.

CONTENTS.

IV. The Normans.
V. The Plantagenets.
VI. The Tudors.

VII. The
VIII. The

Stuarts.
House of

Hanover.

No. 28.

FASHION IN DEFORMITY, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CUS
TOMS OF BARBAROUS AND CIVILIZED RACES.-By WILLIAM

HENRY FLOWER, LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.C.S., P.Z.S., &c., Huiiterian Professor of
Comparative Anatomy, and Conservator of the Museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England. With illustrations.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

MANNERS AND FASHION.- By HERBERT SPENCER.

No. 29.

FACTS AND FICTIONS OF ZOOLOGY.- By ANDREW WILSON, Ph.D.,
F.R.P.S.E., &c., Lecturer on Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the Edin
burgh Medical School; Lecturer on Physiology, Watt Institution and School
of Arts, Edinburgh, &c. With numerous illustrations.

CONTENTS.

Zoological Myths.

The Sea-serpents of Science.

Some Animal Architects.

Parasites and their Development.
What I Saw in an Ant s Nest.

No. 30. and No. 31.

ON THE STUDY OF WORDS. By RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D.,

Archbishop of Dublin.

Lecture I. Introductory Lecture.
Lecture II. On the Poetry in Words.
Lecture III. On the Morality in Words.
Lecture IV. On the Historv in Words.

CONTENTS.

Lecture V. On the Rise of New Words.
Lecture VI. On the Distinction of Words.
Lecture VII. The Schoolmaster s Use of Words.

No. 32.

HEREDITARY TRAITS, AND OTHER ESSAYS.-By RICHARD A.

PROCTOR, B.A. , F.R.A.S., author of "The Sun," "Other Worlds than Ours,"
"Saturn," &c.

I. Hereditary Traits.
H. Artificial Somnambulism.

CONTENTS.

I III. Bodily Illness as a Mental Stimulant.
IV. Dual Consciousness.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 33.

VIGNETTES FROM NATURE. By GRANT ALLEN, author of "The Evolu
tionist at Large."

I. Fallow Deer.
II. Sedge and Woodbrush.
III. Red Campion and White.
IV. Butterfly-Hunting Begins.

V. Red Campion Again.
VI. The Hedgehog s Hole.
VII. On Musbury Castle.
VIII. A Big Fossil Bone.
IX. Veronica.
X. Guelder Rose.
XL The Heron s Haunt.

CONTENTS.

XII. -A Bed of Nettles.
XIII. Loosestrife and Pimpernel.
XIV The Carp Pond.

XV. A Welsh Roadside.
XVI. Seaside Weeds.
XVIL A Mountain Tarn.
XVIII. Wild Thyme.

XIX. The Donkey s Ancestors.
XX. Beside the Cromlech.
XXL The Fall of the Leaf.
XXII. The Fall of the Year.

No. 34.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF STYLE.- By HERBERT SPENCER, author of "First
Principles of Philosophy, "Social Statics," "Elements of Psychology," "Ele
ments of Biology," "Education," &c.

CONTENTS.

PART I. Causes of Force in Language u-Jiich depend upon Economy of the Mental

Energies.

I. The Principle of Economy applied to

Words.

II. The Effect of Figurative Language Ex
plained.

III. Arrangement of Minor Images in Build
ing up a Thought.

IV. The Superiority of Poetry to Prose
Explained.

PART TI. Causes of Force in Language which depend upon Economy of the Mental

Sensibilities.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

THE MOTHER TONGUE. By ALEXANDER BAIN, LL.D., Professor of Logie
in the University of Aberdeen.

CONTENTS.

Conditions of Language Acquisition Generally.
The Mother Tongue.
Teaching Grammar.

The Age for Commencing Grammar.
The Higher Composition.
English Literature.

No. 35.

ORIENTAL RELIGIONS. By JOHN CAIRD, S.T.D., President of the Univer
sity of Glasgow, and other authors.

CONTENTS.

Religions of India.

I. Brahmanism.
II. Buddhism.

By JOHN CAIRO, S.T.D.

Religion of China. Confucianism.

By Rev. GEORGE MATHESON-

Religion of Persia. Zoroaster and the Zend

Avesta. By Rev. JOHN MILNE, M.A..

No. 36.

LECTURES ON EVOLUTION.-With an Appendix on The Study

of Biology. By THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

I. THREE LECTURES ON EVOLUTION.
Lecture I. The Three Hypotheses respecting

the History of Nature.
Lecture II. The Hypothesis of Evolution. The

Neutral and the Favorable Evidence.

CONTENTS.

Lecture III. The Demonstrative Evidence of
Evolution.

II. A LECTURE ON THE STUDY OF BIOLOGY.

No. 37.

SIX LECTURES ON LIGHT.- By Prof. JOHN TYNDALL, F.K.S.

Lecture I. Introductory.
Lecture II. Origin of Physical Theories.
Lecture III. Relation of Theories to Experience.
Lecture IV. Chromatic Phenomena produced by
Crystals on Polarized Light.

CONTENTS.

Lecture V. Range of Vision incommensurate
with Range of Radiation.

Lecture VI. Principles of Spectrum Analysis.
Solar Chemistry. Summary
and Conclusions.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 38 and No. 39.

GEOLOGICAL SKETCHES AT HOME AND ABROAD.- By ARCH-

IBALD GEIKIE, LL.D., F.R.8., Director-General of the Geological Surveys of
Great Britain and Ireland. In Two Parts, each complete in itself.

CONTENTS.
PART I. No. 38.

I. My First Geological Excursion. I.

II. "the Old Man of Hoy." II.

III. The Baron s Stone of Killochan. ILL

IV. The Colliers of Carrick. IV,

V. Among the Volcanoes of Central France. V.

VI. The Old Glaciers of Norway and Scotland. VI.

VII. Rock-Weathering Measured by the Decay VII.

of Tombstones.

PART II. No. 39.
A Fragment of Primeval Europe.
In Wyoming.

The Geysers of the Yellowstone.
The Lava Fields of Northwestern Europe.
The Scottish School of Geology.
Geographical Evolution.
The Geological Influences which have affect
ed the Course of British History.

No. 40.

THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION.-By

GEORGE J. ROMANES, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Zoological Secretary of the Linnean
Society, London.

CONTENTS.

V. The Argument from Geographical Distrfbu-
VI. The Argument from Embryology. [tion.
VII. Arguments drawn from Certain General
Considerations.

I. Introduction.

II. The Argument from Classification. [ure.
III. The Argument from Morphology or Struct-
IV. The Argument from Geology.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

PALEONTOLOGY AND THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION.-By

Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

NATURAL SELECTION AND NATURAL THEOLOGY.- By EUSTACE

R. COXDER, D.D.
No. 41.

CURRENT DISCUSSIONS IN SCIENCE.- By W. MATTIEU WILLIAMS,
F.R.A.S., F.C.S., author of "The Fuel of the Sun," "Through Norway with a
Knapsack," "A Simple Treatise on Heat," &c.

CONT

I. Meteoric Astronomy.
II. Dr. Siemens s Theory of the Sun.
III. Another World Down Here.
IV. The Origin of Volcanoes.
V. Note on the Direct Effect of Siin-Spots on

Terrestrial Climates.
VI. The Philosophy of the Radiometer and its

Cosmical Revelations.
VIL The Solidity of the Earth.
"VIII. Meteoric AstrOnomv.

E N T S.
IX.-
X.-
XI.-
XII.-

XIII.-
XIV.-
XV.-
XVI.-

- Aerial Exploration of the Arctic Regions.
-"Baily s Beads."
World-smashing.

-On the so-called "Crater-Necks" and
"Volcanic Bombs" of Ireland.

- Travertine.

-Murchison and Babbage.
-The Consumption of Smoke."
-The Air of Stove-heated Rooms.

o. 42.

HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE OF POLITICS.- By FREDERICK
POLLOCK.

CONT

Ohapter I. Introductory. Place of the Theory
of Politics in Human Knowledge.

Chapter II. The Classic Period: Pericles Soc
ratesPlato Aristotle. The Greek Ideal of
the State.

Chapter III. The Mediaeval Period: The Papacy
and the Empire. Thomas Aqiiinas Dante
Bracton Marsilio of Padua.

Chapter IV. The Modern Period: Machiavelli
Jean Bodin Sir Thomas Smith Hobbes.

E N T S.

Chapter V. The Modern Period (continued):
Hooker Locke Rousseau Blackstone.

Chapter VI. The Modern Period (continued):
Hume Montesquieu Burke.

Chapter VIL The Present Century: Political
Sovereignty Limits of State Intervention
Bentham Austin Maine Bagehot Kant
Ahrens Savigny Cornewall Lewis John
Stuart Mill Herbert Spencer Laboulaye.

No. 43.

DARWIN AND HUMBOLDT.--Their Lives and Work.-By Prof.

HUXLEY and others.

CONTENTS.

CHARLES DARWIN.

I. Introductory Notice. By TH. H. HUXLEY.

II. Life and Character. By GEO. J. ROMANES.
III. Work in Geology. By ARCHIBALD GEIKIE.
IV. Work in Botany.-ByW.T.THiSELTON DYER.

V. Work in Zoology. By GEO. J. ROMANES.
VI. Work in Psychology. By GEO. J. ROMANES.

ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.

I. An Address delivered by Louis AGASSIZ at
the Centennial Anniversary of the birth of ALEX
ANDER VON HUMBOLDT, under the auspices of the
Boston Society of Natural History, Sept. 14. 1869.

II. Remarks by Prof. FREDERIC H. HEDGE, of
Harvard University.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 44 and No. 45.

THE DAWN OF HISTORY.- An Introduction to Prehistoric

Study. Edited by C. F. KEARY, M.A., of the British Museum. In Two
Parts, each complete in itself.

CONTENTS.

Chapter L-
Chapter II.-
Chapter III.-
Chapter IV.-
Chapter V.-
Chapter VI.-
Chapter VII.-

PART I. No. 44.
-The Earliest Traces of Man.
-The Second Stone Age.
-The Growth of Language.
-Families of Language.
-The Nations of the Old World.
-Early Social Life.
-The Village Community.

PART II. No. 45.
Chapter VIII. Religion.
Chapter EX. Aryan Religions.
Chapter X. The Other World.
Chapter XL Mythologies and Folk-Tales.
Chapter XII. Picture-Writing.
Chapter XIII. Phonetic Writing. [ities.

Chapter XIV. Conclusion. Notes and Author-

46.

THE DISEASES OF MEMORY. By TH. RIBOT, author of "Heredity,"
"English Psychology," &c. Translated from the French by J. FITZGERALD, A.M.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. MEMORY AS A BIOLOGICAL FACT.

Memory essentially a biological fact, incident
ally a psychic fact. Organic memory. Mod
ifications of nei ve-elements: dynamic associa
tions between these elements. Conscious mem-
oiy. Conditions of consciousness: intensity:
duration. Unconscious cerebration. Nerve-
action is the fundamental condition of memory;
consciousness is only an accessory. Localiza
tion in the past, or recollection. Mechanism
of this operation. It is not a simple and instan
taneous act; it consists of the addition of sec
ondary states of consciousness to the principal
state of consciousness. Memory is a vision in
time Localization, theoretical and practical.
Reference points. Resemblance and difference
between localization in the future and in the
past. All memory an illusion. Forge tfuln ess
a condition of memory. Return to the starting-
point: conscious memory tends little by little to
become automatic.

Chapter II. GENERAL AMNESIA.

Classification of the diseases of memory. Tem
porary amnesia. Epileptics. Forgetfulness of
certain periods of life. Examples of re-educa
tion. Slow and sudden recoveries. Case of pro
visional memory. Periodical or intermittent
amnesia. Formation of two memories, totally
or pai tially distinct. Cases of hypnotism re
corded by Macnish.Azam. and Dnfay. Progress
ive amnesia. Its importance. Reveals the law
which governs the destruction of memory. Law
of regression : enunciation of this law. In what

order memory fails. Counter-proof: it is recon
stituted in inverse order. Confirmatory facts.
Congenital amnesia. Extraordinary memory of
some idiots.

Chapter III. PARTIAL AMNESIA.

Reduction of memory to memories. Anatomical
and physiological reasons for partial memories.
Amnesia of numbers, names. figures.forms,&c.
Amnesia of signs. Its nature : a loss of motor-
memory. Examination of this point. Progress
ive amnesia of signs verifies completely the law
of regression. Order of dissolution : proper
names: common nouns ; verbs and adjectives;
interjections, and language of the emotions:
gestures. Relation between this dissolution and
the evolution of the Indo-European languages.
Counter-proof : return of signs in inverse order.

Chapter IV. EXALTATION OF MEMORY, OR

HYPERMNESIA.

General excitation. Partial excitation. Return
of lost memories. Return of forgotten lan
guages. Reduction of this fact to the law of re
gression. Case of false memory. Examples,
and a suggested explanation.

Chapter V. CONCLUSION.

Relations between the retention of perceptions
and nutrition, between the reproduction of rec
ollections and the general and local circulation.
Influence of the quantity and quality of the
blood. Examples. The law of regression con
nected with a physiological principle and a psy
chological principle. Recapitulation.

No. 47.

THE CHILDHOOD OF RELIGIONS.-Embracing a Simple Account
of the Birth and Growth of Myths and Legends. B Y EDWAKI>

CLODD, F.R.A.S., author of "The Childhood of the World," "The Story of
Creation," &c.

CONTEXTS.

Chapter I.-
Chapter II.-
Chapter III.-
Chapter IV.-
Chapter V.-
Chapter VI.-
ChapterVIL-

Introductory. [tion.
Legends of the Past about the Crea-

Creation as told by Science.
-Legends of the Past about Mankind.
-Early Races of Mankind. [tions.
-The Aryan, or Indo-European na-
-The Ancient and Modern Hindu

Religions.

Chapter VIII. Zoroastrianism. the Ancient Re
ligion of Persia.
Chapter IX. Buddhism.
Chapter X. The Religions of China.
Chapter XL The Semitic Nations.
Chapter XII. Mohammedanism, or Islam.
Chapter XIII. On the Study of the Bible.

Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 48.

LIFE IN NATURE. By JAMES HINTON, author of "Man and his Dwelling-
Place," "The Mystery of Pain," &c.

CONTENTS.

Chapter L-
Chapter II.-
Chapter III.-
Ohapter IV.-
Chapter V.-
Chapter VI.-
ChapterVIL-

-Of Function; or, How We Act.
-Of Nutrition; or. Why We Grow.
-Of Nutrition; The Vital Force.
-Of Living Forms: or. Morphology.
-Living Forms. The Law of Form.
- Is Life Universal ?
-The Living World.

Chapter VIII. Nature and Man.

Chapter IX. The Phenomenal and the True.

Chapter X. Force.

Chapter XI. The Organic and the Inorganic.

Chapter XII. The Life of Man.

Chapter XIII. Conclusion.

No. 49.

THE SUN: Its Constitution; Its Phenomena; Its Condition.-

By NATHAN T. CAIIR, LL.D., Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Indiana.
With an Appendix by RICHARD A. PROCTOR and M. W. WILLIAMS.

CONTENTS.

Section I.

Section

Section

Section

Section

Section

Section VII

Section VIII

II.
III.-
IV.

V.-
VI.-

Section IX.
Section X.
Section XL
Section XII.
Section XIII.
Section XIV.
Section XV.

Pui-pose of this Essay. Difficulties
of the Subject.

Distance from the Earth to the Sun.

The Diameter of the Sun.

The Form of the Sun.

Rotary Motion of the Sun.

PeVturbating Movement.

The Sun s Orbital Movement.

The Sun s Attractive Force. Den
sity of the Solar Mass.

The Sun s Atmosphere.

The Chromosphere.

Corona. Prominences, and Faculas.

The Photosphere.

The Sun s Heat.

Condition of the Interior.

Effects of Heat on Matter.

Section XVI.
Section XVII.
Section XVIII.
Section XIX.
Section XX.
Section XXI.

Section
Section
Section
Section
Section

XXII.-
XXIIL-
XXIV.-

XXV.-
XXVI.

Section XXVII.-
Section XXVIII

The Expansive Power of Heat.

The Sun s Crust,

The Gaseous Theory.

The Vapor Theory.

The "Cloud-like" Theory.
-Supposed Supports of the Fore
going Theories.

-The Crust in a Fluid Condition.
-Production of the Sun-Spots.

- The Area of Sun-Spots Limited.
-Periodicity of the Spots.

- The Spots are Cavities in the

Sun.
-How the Heat of the Sun reaches

the Earth.
The Question of the Extinction

of the Sun.

Appendix. First. The Sun s Corona and his Spots. By RICHARD A. PROCTOR.
Second. The Fuel of the Sun. By RICHARD A. PROCTOR.
Third. The Fuel of the Sun. A Reply, by W. M. WILLIAMS.

No. 50 and No. 51.

MONEY AND THE MECHANISM OF EXCHANGE.- By W. STANLEY

JEVONS, M.A., F.E.S., Professor of Logic and Political Economy in the Owens
College, Manchester, England. In Two Parts.

CONTENTS.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

Barter.

Exchange.

The Functions of Money.

Early History of Money.

Qualities of the Material of Money

The Metals as Money.

Coins.

The Principles of Circulation.

Systems of Metallic Money.

The English System of Metallic

Currency.

Fractional Currency.
The Battle of the Standards.
Technical Matters relating to

Coinage.
International Money.

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter VII.-
Chapter VIII.-
Chapter IX.-
Chapter X.-

Chapter XI.-
Chapter XII.-
Chapter XIII.-

Chapter XIV.-

No. 52.

THE DISEASES OF THE Wl LL.- By TH. RIBOT, author of The Dis
eases of Memory," &c. Translated from the French by J. FITZGERALD, A.M.

Chapter XV.
Chapter XVI.
Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIIL

Chapter XIX.
Chapter XX.
Chapter XXI
Chapter XXII.
Chapter XXIII.
Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.
Chapter XXVI.

The Mechanism of Exchange.

Representative Money.

The Nature and Varieties of

Promissory Notes.
Methods of Regulating a Paper

Currency.

Credit Documents. [System.
Book Credit and the Banking
The Clearing-Hotise System.
The Check Bank.
Foreign Bills of Exchange.
The Bank of England and the

Money Market.

A Tabular Standard of Value.
The Quantity of Money needed

by a Nation.

CONTENTS.

Chapter
Chapter

I. Introduction. -The Question Stated.
II. Impairment of the Will. Lack of

Impulsion.

Chapter III. Impairment of the Will. Excess of
Impulsion.

Chapter IV. Impairment of Voluntary Attention.
Chapter V. The Realm of Caprice.
Chapter VI. Extinction of the Will.
Chapter VII. Conclusion.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 53.

ANIMAL AUTOMATISM, AND OTHER ESSAYS.- By THOMAS

HENRY HUXLEY, LL.D., F.R.S.

CONTENTS.

I. On the Hypothesis that Animals are

Automata, and its History.
II. Science and Culture.
III. On Elementary Instruction in Physiology.

IV. On the Border Territory between the
Animal and the Vegetable Kingdoms.
V. Universities: Actual and Ideal.

No. 54.

THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF MYTHS.- By EDWARD CLODD,
F.E.A.S., author of "The Childhood of the World," "The Childhood of Re
ligions," "The Story of Creation," &c.

COST

I. Nature as Viewed by Primitive Man.
II. Personification of the Powers of Nature.
III. The Sun and Moon in Mythology.
IV. The Theories of Certain Comparative

Mythologists.
V. Aryan Mythology.

VI. The Primitive Nature-Myth Transformed.
VII. The Stars in Mythology.
VIII. Mvths of the Destructive Forces of Nature.
IX. The Hindu Sun-and-Cloud Myth.
X. Demonology.

E N T S.

XI. Metempsychosis and Transformation.
XII. Transformation in the Middle Ages.
XIII. The Belief in Transformation Universal.
XIV. Beast-Fables.

XV. Totemism.

XVI. Heraldry: ^Ancestor- worship, [tives.

XVII. Survival of Myth in Historical Narra-
XVIII. Myths of King Arthur and Llewellyn.
XIX Semitic Myths and Legends.
XX. Conclusion.
Appendix. An American Indian Myth.

No. 55.

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALS, AND OTHER ESSAYS,

By WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD, F.R.S.

I. On the Scientific Basis of Morals.
II. Right and Wrong : the Scientific Ground
of their Distinction.

CONTENTS.

III. The Ethics of Belief.
IV The Ethics of Religion.

No. 56 and No. 57.

ILLUSIONS: A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY.- By JAMES SULLY, author
of "Sensation and Intuition." "Pessimism," &c. In Two Parts.

CONTENTS.

L-
II.-

-Tlie Study of Illusion.
-The Classification of Illusions.
-Illusions of Perception : General.
-Illusions of Perception (continued).
-Illusions of Perception (continued).
-Illusions of Perception (continued).
Chapter VII. Dreams.

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter
Chapter

V.-

VI.-

Chapter VIII. Illusions of Introspection.
Chapter IX. Other Quasi-Presentative Illu
sions : Errors of Insight.
Chapter X. Illusions of Memory.
Chapter XI. Illusions of Belief."
Chapter XII. Results.

No. 58 and No. 59. Two double numbers, 30 cents each.

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES- BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELEC
TION, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle

for Life. By CHARLES DARWIN, M.A., F.R.S. New edition, from the sixth
and latest English edition, with additions and corrections. Tiro double numbers.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

CONT

-Variation under Domestication.
-Variation under Nature.
-Struggle for Existence.
-Natural Selection; or. the Sur
vival of the Fittest.
-Laws of Variation.
-Difficulties of the Theory.

- Miscellaneous Objections to the

Theory of Natural Selection.
-Instinct.

- Hybridism.

E N T S.

Chapter X. On the Imperfection of the Geo
logical Record.

Chapter XI. On the Geological Succession oi
Organic Beings.

Chapter XII. Geological Distribution.

Chapter XIII. Geological Distribution (contin d).

Chapter XIV. Mutual Affinities of Organic Be
ings: Morphology: Embryology:
Rudimentary Organs.

Chapter XV. Recapitulation and Conclusion.

Index. Glossary of Scientific Terms.

Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 60.

THE CHILDHOOD OF THE WORLD.-A Simple Account of Man

in Early Times. By EDWARD CLODD, F.R.A.S., author of "The Childhood
of Religions," "The Story of Creation," &c.

CONTENTS.

L-

II.-

III.-

IV.

V.

VI.-

VII.-

VIII.-

IX.-

X.-
XI.-

XII.-
XIII.-
XIV.-

XV.-

XVI.-

XVII.-

XVIII.-

PART I.

- Introductory.
-Man s Fii-st Wants.
-Man s First Tools.

- Fire.

-Cooking and Pottery.

-Dwellings.

-Use of Metals.

-Man s Great Age on the Earth.

-Mankind as Shepherds, Farmers, and

Traders.
-Language.

- Writing.
-Counting.

-Man s Wanderings from his first Home.
-Man s Progress in all things.

- Decay of Peoples.

PART II.

- Introductory.

Man s First Questions.

- Myths.

XIX-

XX.-

XXI.-

XXII.-

XXIII.-

XXIV.-

XXV.-

XXVI.-

XXVII.-

XXVIII.-

XXIX.-

XXX.-

XXXI.-

XXXII.-

XXXIII. -

XXXIV.-

XXXV.

XXX VI. -

XXXVII.-

- Myths about Sun and Moon.
-Myths about Eclipses.
Myths about Stars.

-Myths about the Earth and Man.
-Man s Ideas about the Soul.
-Belief in Magic and Witchcraft.
-Man s Awe of the Unknown.
-Fetish- Worship.
-Idolatry.

- Nature -Worship.

1. Water -Worship.

2. Tree -Worship.

3. Animal -Worship.
-Polytheism, or Belief in Many Gods.
-Dualism, or Belief in Two Gods.

- Prayer.

- Sacrifice.

-Monotheism, or Belief in One God.
-Three Stoi-ies About Abraham.
-Man s Belief in a Future Life.
-Saci-ed Books.

- Conclusion.

No. 61.

MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS.- By RICHARD A. PROCTOR, B.A., F.R.A.S.,

author of "The Sun," "Other Worlds than Ours," "Saturn," &c.

CONTENTS.

I. Strange Coincidences.
II. Coincidences and Superstitions.
III. Gambling Superstitions.
IV. Learning Languages.

V. Strange Sea Creatures.
VI. The Origin of Whales.
VII. Prayer and Weather.

No. 62.

THE RELIGIONS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD, including Egypt,
Assyria and Babylonia, Persia, India, Phoenicia, Etruria, Greece,

Rome. By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., Camden Professor of Ancient History,
Oxford, and Canon of Canterbury. Author of "The Origin of Nations," "The
Five Great Monarchies," &c.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. The Religion of the Ancient

Egyptians.
Chapter II. The Religion of the Assyrians

and Babylonians.
Chapter III. The Religion of the Ancient

Iranians.
Chapter IV. The Religion of the Early

Sanskritic Indians.

Chapter V. The Religion of the Phoenicians
and Carthaginians.

Chapter VI. The Reliirion of the Etruscans.

Chapter VII. The Religion of the Ancient
Greeks.

Chapter VIII. The Religion of the Ancient
Romans.

Concluding Remarks.

No. 63.

PROGRESSIVE MORALITY.-An Essay in Ethics.- By THOMAS

FOWLER, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A., President of Corpus Christ! College, Wykeharn
Professor of Logic in the University of Oxford.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Introduction. The Sanctions of

Conduct.
Chapter II. The Moral Sanction or Moral

Sentiment. Its Functions, and

the Justification of its Claims to

Superiority.

Chapter III. Analysis and Formation of the
Moral Sentiment. Its Education
and Improvement.

Chapter IV. The Moral Test and its Justification.

Chapter V. The Practical Application of the
Moral Test to Existing Morality.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 64.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF LIFE, Animal and Vegetable, in Space

and Time. % ALFRED EUSSEL WALLACE and W. T. THISELTON DYER.

C O X T E N T S.

SECTION I. DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMALS.
Geographical Distribution of Land Animals.
A. Vertical Distribution of Animals.
B- Powers of Dispersal of Animals.
C. Widespread and Local Groups. [mals.

D. Barriers which Limit the Distribution of Ani-
E. Zoological Regions.

The Palaearctic Region.

The Ethiopian Region.

The Oriental Region.

The Australian Region.

The Neotropical Region.

The Nearctic Region.

Distribution of the Higher Animals during the
Tertiary Period.

A. Tertiary Faunas and their Geographical Rela
tions to those of the six Zoological Regions.

B. Birthplace and Migrations of some Mamma
lian Families and Genera.

Distribution of Marine Animals.

Foraminifera. Cirrhipedia.

Spongida. Mollusca.

Actinozoa. Fishes.

Polyzoa. Marine Turtles.

Echinodermata. Cetacea.

Crustacea.

General Relations of Marine with Terrestrial

Zoological Regions.
Distribution of Animals in Time.

SECTION II. DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETABLE LIFE.

THE NORTHERN FLORA.

The Arctic-Alpine Flora.

The Intermediate or Temperate Flora.

The Mediterraneo-Caucasian Flora.

THE SOUTHERN FLORA.

The Antarctic-Alpine Flora.

The Australian Flora.

The Andine Flora.

The Mexico-Californiai! Flora.

The South-African Flora.

THK TROPICAL FLORA.

The Indo-Malayan Tropical Flora.
The American Tropical Flora.
The African Tropical Flora.

No. 65.

CONDITIONS OF MENTAL DEVELOPMENT, and Other Essays.

By WILLIAM KIXGDOX CLIFFORD, F.R.S., late Professor of Applied Mathematics
in University College, London.

CONTENTS.

I.-
II.

On some of the Conditions of Mental

Development.

On the Aims and Instruments of Scientific

Thought.

III. A Lecture on Atoms.

IV. The First and the Last Catastrophe. A crit
icism on some recent speculations about
the duration of the universe.

No. 66.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION, AND OTHER ESSAYS.-By

THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, F.R.S.

I. Technical Education.
II. The Connection of the Biological Sciences

with Medicine.
III. Joseph Priestly.

CONTENTS.

IV. On Sensation and the Unity of Structure of

Sensiferous Organs.

V. On Certain Errors respecting the Structure
of the Heart attributed to Aristotle.

No. 67.

THE BLACK DEATH: An Account of the Deadly Pestilence of

the Fourteenth Century. By J. F. C. HECKER. M.D., Professor in the
Frederick William University, Berlin; Member of various learned societies in
London, Lyons, New York, Philadelphia, &c. Translated for the Sydenham
Society, of London, by B. G. BABINGTON, M.D., F.R.S.

Chapter I. General Observations.
Chapter II. The Disease.
Chapter III. Causes. Spread.
Chapter IV. Mortality.
Chapter V. Moral Effects.
Chapter VI. Physicians.

CONTENTS.

Appendix.

I. The Ancient Song of the Flagellants.
II. Examination of the Jews accused of
Poisoning the Wells.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 68. Special number, 1O cents.

LAWS IN GENERAL, AND THE ORDER OF THEIR DISCOVERY.
THE ORIGIN OF ANIMAL WORSHIP.- POLITICAL FETICHISM.

Three Essays by HERBERT SPENCER.

No. 69.

FETICHISM. A Contribution to Anthropology and the History of

Religion. Bv FRITZ SCHULTZE, Dr. Phil. Translated from the German by
J. FITZGERALD, M.A.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Introductory.

Chapter II. The Mind of the Savage in its In
tellectual and Moral Aspects.

1. The Intellect of the Savage.

2. The Morality of the Savage.

3. Conclusion.

Chapter III. The Relation between the Savage
Mind and its Object.

1. The Value of Objects. [jects.

2. The Anthropathic Apprehension of Ob-

3. The Causal Connection of Objects.
Chapter IV. Fetichism as a Religion.

1. The Belief in Fetiches.

2. The Range of Fetich Influence.

3. The Religiosity of Fetich Worshipers.

4. Worship and Sacrifice.

5. Fetich Priesthoods.

6. Fetichism among Non-Savages.

Chapter

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Chapter

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Chapter

1.

V. The Various Objects of Fetich Wor-
Stones as Fetiches. [ship.

Mountains as Fetiches.
Water as a Fetich.
Wind and Fire as Fetiches.
Plants as Fetiches.
Animals as Fetiches.
Men as Fetiches.

VI. The Highest Grade of Fetichism.
The New Object.

The Gradual Acquisition of Knowledge.
The Worship of the Moon.
The Worship of the Stars.
The Transition to Sun -Worship.
The Worship of the Sun.
The Worship of the Heavens.
VII. The Aim of Fetichism.
Retrospect. 2. The New Problem.

70.

ESSAYS, SPECULATIVE AND PRACTICAL.- By HERBERT SPENCER.

I. Specialized Administration,
n. "The Collective Wisdom."
III. Morals and Moral Sentiments.

CONTENTS.

IV. Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy

of Comte.
V. What is Electricity?

No. 71.

ANTHROPOLOGY. By DANIEL WILSON, LL.D., author of "Prehistoric Man."

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Scope of the Science.
Chapter II. Man s Place in Natui e.
Chapter III. Oiigin of Man.
Chapter IV. Races of Mankind.

Chapter V. Antiquity of Man.

Chapter VI. Language.

Chapter VII. Development of Civilization.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

ARCHEOLOGY. By E. B. TYLOR, F.R.S., author of "The Early History of
Mankind," Primitive Culture," &c.

No. 72.

THE DANCING MANIA OF THE MIDDLE AGES.- By J. P. c.

HECKER, M.D., Professor in the Frederick William University, Berlin; author of
"The Black Death." Translated by B. G. BABINGTON, M.D., F.K.S.

CO NT

Chapter I. The Dancing Mania in Germany and

the Netherlands.
Sect. 1. St. John s Dance.
Sect. 2. St. Vitus s Dance.
Sect. 3. Causes.

Sect. 4. More Ancient Dancing Plagues.
Sect. 5. Physicians.

Sect. 6. Decline and Termination of the
Dancing Plague.

ENTS.

Chapter II.

Sect.

Sect.

Sect.

Sect.

Sect.

Sect.
Chapter III.-

Sect.
Chapter IV.-

The Dancing Mania in Italy.

1. Tarantism.

2. Most Ancient Traces. Causes.

3. Increase.

4. Idiosyncracies. Music.

5. Hysteria.

6. Decrease.
-The Dancing Mf\iia in Abyssinia.

1. Tigretier.
- Sympathy.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York,

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 73.

EVOLUTION IN HISTORY, LANGUAGE, AND SCIENCE.

Four addresses delivered at the London Crystal Palace iSehool of Art, Science
and Literature.
I.
Past and Present in the East. A Parallelism demonstrating the principle

of Causal Evolution, and the necessity of the study of General History.

By G. G. ZERFFI, D.Ph., Fellow of the Royal Historical Society of London.

A Plea for a More Scientific Study of Geography. By Rev. w. A.

HALES, M.A., formerly Exhibitioner of Caius College, Cambridge.
III.

Hereditary Tendencies as Exhibited in History. By HENRY ELLIOT

MALDEN, M.A., F.R.H.S., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.

Vicissitudes of the English Language. By Bev. ROBINSON THORNTON,
D.D., F.R.H.S., formerly Fellow of St. John s College, Oxford.

Nos. 74. 75, 76, 77 (double number).

THE DESCENT OF MAN, AND SELECTION IN RELATION

TO SEX. By CHARLES DARWIN. With Illustrations. New Edition. Re
vised and Augmented.

CONTENTS.

PART I.
THE DESCENT OR ORIGIN OF MAN.

Chapter I. The Evidence of the Descent of
Man from some Lower Form.

Chapter II. On the Manner of Development of
Man from some Lower Form.

Chapter III. Comparison of the Mental Powers
of Man and the Lower Animals.

Chapter IV. Comparison of the Mental Powers
of Man and the Lower Animals
(continued).

Chapter V. On the Development of the Intel
lectual and Moral Facilities dur
ing Primeval and Civilized Times

Chapter VI. On the Affinities and Genealogy of
Man.

Chapter VII. On the Races of Man.

Chapter
Chapter

PART II.

SEXUAL SELECTION.
VIII. Principles of Sexual Selection.
IX. Secondary Sexual Character in
the Lower Classes of the An-

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

X. Secondary Sexual Characters of

Insects.

XI. Insects (continued) Order Lepi-
doptera(butterriies and moths)
XII. Secondary Sexual Characters of
Fishes, Amphibians, and Rep
tiles.
XIII. Secondary Sexual Charactei s of

Birds.

XIV. Birds (continued).
XV. Birds (continued).
XVI Birds (concluded).
Chapter XVII. Secondary Sexual Chanicters of

Mammals.

Chapter XVIII. Secondary Sexual Characters of
Mammals (continued).

Chapter

Chapter
Chapter
Chapter

PART III.
SEXUAL SELECTION IN RELATION TO MAN,

AND CONCLUSION.
Chapter XIX. Secondary Sexual Characters of

Man.

Chapter XX. Secondary Sexual Characters of
Man (continued). [sion.

Chapter XXI. General Summary and Conclu-

imal Kingdom. ___ ,

*% Numbers 74, 75. 76. are single numbers (15 cents each) ; Number 77 is a double number (SO^ents).
Price of the entire work 75 cents.

No. 78.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN
ENGLAND, with Suggestions for some Improvement in the law.

By WILLIAM LLOYD BIRKBECK, M.A., Master of Downing College, and Downing
Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge.

CONTEXTS.

PART I. XIII

I. Anglo-Saxon Agriculture. Geneats and

Geburs. Villani.

II. Agriculture after the Conquest. Villein
age. Copyholders. Continental Serfs.
III. Origin of Large Properties. Estates of
Anglo-Saxon Nobility. Evidence of
Domesday.

IV. The Soke. Socage Tenure.
V. Agricultural Communities.
VI. Mr. Seebohm.

VII. The First Taxation of Laud. The Hide.
VIII. Saxon Law of Sticcession to Land.

IX. Effect of the Norman Conquest on the

Distribution of Land.

X. Norman Law of Succession. I.

XL Strict Entails. The Statute "De Donis II.

Condi tionnlibus." III.

XII. Effects of Strict Entails. Scotch Entails. IV.

Relaxation of Strict Entails. Common
Recoveries.

Henry VII. and his Nobles. The Statute
of Fines.

Strict Settlements.

Effect ot Strict Settlements of Land.

Mr. Thorold Rogers.

XVII. Trustees to Preserve Contingent Re
mainders.

Powers of Sale.

Inclosure of Waste Lands. Mr. John
Walter. Formation of a Peasant Pro
prietary.

PART II.

-Amendment of Law of Primogeniture.
Proposed System of Registration.
-Modern Registration Acts.
-The Present General Registration Act.

xiv.:

XV.

XVI.

xvm.

XIX.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

NO. ?r.

SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF SOME FAMILIAR THINGS.- By w.

M. WILLIAMS, F.R.S., F.C.S.

L On tlie Social Benefits of Paraffin.
II. The Formation of Coal.
III. The Chemistry of Bog Reclamation.
IV. The Coloring of Green Tea.

V. "Iron-Filings in Tea.
VI. The Origin of Soap.

CONTENTS.

VII. The Action of Frost in Water-Pipes and

on Building Materials.
VIII. Fire.-Clay and Anthracite.

IX. Count Rumford s Cooking-Stoves.
X. The Air of Stove-Heated Rooms.
XI. Domestic Ventilation.

jfo. 80. Double number, 3O cents.

CHARLES DARWIN: HIS LIFE AND WORK.- By GRANT ALLEN.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. The World into which Darwin was

born.

Chapter II. Charles Darwin and his Antecedents.
Chapter III. Early Days.
Chapter IV. Darwin s Wander-Years.
Chapter V. The Period of Incubation.
Chapter VI. "The Origin of Species."

Chapter VII. The Darwinian Revolution begins.
Chapter VIII. The Descent of Man.
Chapter IX. The Theory of Courtship.
Chapter X. Victory and Rest.
Chapter XI. Darwin s Place in the Evolution
ary Movement.
Chapter XII. The Net Result.

No. 81.

THE MYSTERY OF MATTER: and
THE PHILOSOPHY OF IGNORANCE.

Bv 3. ALLANSON PICTON.

No. 82.

ILLUSIONS OF THE SENSES: AND OTHER ESSAYS.-- By

RICHARD A. PROCTOR.

I. Illusions of the Senses.
II. Animals of the Present and the Past.
III. Life in Other Worlds.
IV. Earthquakes.

C O N T E N T S.

V. Our Dual Brain.
VI. A New Star in a Star-Cloud.
VII. Monster Sea-Serpents.
VIII. The Origin of Comets.

No. 83.

PROFIT-SHARING BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR.-Six Essays.

By SEDLEY TAYLOR, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Eng.

CONTENTS.

Essay I. Profit-Sharing in the Maison Leclaire.
Essay II. Profit-Sharing in Industry.
Essay III. Profit-Sharing in Industry (continued).
Essay IV. Profit-Sharing in the Paris and Orleans
Railway Company.

Essay V. Profit-Sharing in Agriculture.

Appendix to Essay V. Mr. Vande-
lenr s Irish Experiment.

Essay VI. Profit -Shaving in Distributive Enter
prise.

No. 84.

STUDIES OF ANIMATED NATURE.-Fom Essays, viz.,
i.

Bats. By W. S. DALLAS, F.L.S.

DraVon-Flies.-By w. S. DALLAS, F.L.S.

III.

The Glow-worm and other Phosphorescent Animals. ByG. G. Cms-

HOLM, M.A., B.Sc.
IV.

Minute Organisms. By FREDERICK P. BALKWILL.

No. 85.

THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF RELIGION.- By J. ALLANSON PIOTON,

author of "The Mvsterv of Matter," &c.

CONTEXTS.

I. Religion and Freedom of Thought.
II. The Evolution of Religion. Fetichism.
III. Nature -Worship.

IV. Prophetic Religions.
V. Religious Dogma. The Future of Religion.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 86.

THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE. By WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD, F.E.S.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PURE SCIENCES.- By WILLIAM KING-

DON CLIFFORD, F.E.S.

CONTENTS.

I. Statement of the Question.
II. Knowledge and Feeling.

III. The Postulates of the Science of Space.
IV. The Universal Statements of Arithmetic.

No. 87.

THE MORPHINE HABIT (MORPHINOMANIA).- Three Lectures by
Professor B. BALL, M.D., of the Paris Faculty of Medicine.

CONTENTS.

I. Morphinomania. General Description.

Effects of the Abuse of Morphine.
II. Morphinomania. Effects of Abstinence
from Morphine.

III. Morphinomania. Diagnosis, Prognosis, and
Treatment.

To which is appended four other lectures, viz.,

-The Border-Land of Insanity.
IL Cerebral Dualism.

-Prolonged Dreams.
IY Insanity in Twins.

Xo. 88.

SCIENCE AND CRIME, AND OTHER ESS A VS.- By ANDREW WILSON,
F.B.S.E.

CONTENTS.

T. The Earliest Known Life-Relic.
II. About Kangaroos.
III. On. Giants.

IV. The Polity ef a Pond.
V. Skates and Rays.
VI. Leaves.

Xo. 89.

THE GENESIS OF SCIENCE. -By HERBERT SPENCER.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

THE COMING OF AGE OF "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES."-By

Professor THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, F.R.S.

No. 90.

NOTES ON EARTHQUAKES: with Thirteen Miscellaneous Essays.

By RICHARD A. PROCTOR.

CONTENTS.

I. Xotes on Earthquakes.
II. Photographing Fifteen Million Stars.
III. The Story of the Moon.
IV. The Earth s Past.
V. The Story of the Earth.
VI. The Falls of Xiagara.
VII. The Unknowable.

VIII. Sun -Worship.
IX. Herbert Spencer on Priesthoods.
X. The Star of Bethlehem and a Bible Comet.
XI. An Historical Puzzle.
XII. Galileo, Darwin, and the Pope.
XIII. Science and Politics.
XIV. Parents and Children.

No. 91. Double number, 3O cents.

THE RISE OF UNIVERSITIES. By S. S. LAURIE, LL.D., Professor of the
Institutes and History of Education in the University of Edinburgh.

CONT

I. The Romano-Hellenic Schools and their

Decline.
II. Influence of Christianity on Education, and

Rise of Christian Schools.
III. Charlemagne and the Ninth Century.
IV. InnerWork of Christian Schools (450-1100).
V. Tenth and Eleventh Centiiries.
VI. The Rise of Universities (A. D. 1100).
VII. The First Universities. The Schola Saler-

nitana and the University of Naples.
VIII. The University of Bologna.

ENTS.

IX The University of Paris.
X. The Constitution of Universities. The
terms "Studium Generale" and "Uni-
versitas."

XI. Students, their Numbers and Discipline.
Privileges of Universities. Faculties.
XII. Graduation.
XIII. Oxford and Cambridge.
XIV. The University of Prague.
XV. University Studies and" the Conditions of
Graduation.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 92. Double number, 3O cents.

THE FORMATION OF VEGETABLE MOULD THROUGH THE
Action of Earthworms, with Observations on their Habits.-

By CHARLES DARWIN, LL.D., F.R.S.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Habits of Worms.

Chapter II. Habits of Worms (continued).

Chapter III. The Amount of Fine Earth brought

up by Worms to the surface.
Chapter IV. The Part which Worms have played

in the Biirial of Ancient Build

ings.

Chapter V. The Action of Worms in the Denu

dation of the Land.
Chapter VI. The Denudation of the Land (con

tinued).
Chapter VII. Conclusion.

Xo. 93. Special number, 1O cents.

SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.-By J.

MOUNT BLEYER, M.D.

CONTENTS.

I. General Review of the Subject.
II. Death by Hanging.
III. Death by Electricity.
IV. Death by Morphine Injection.

V. Death by Chlorofonn.
VI. Death by Prussic Acid.
VII. Objections Considered.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

INFLICTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY.- By PARK BENJAMIN.

No. 94.

THE FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION.-By HERBERT SPENCER.

No. 95.

THE DISEASES OF PERSONALITY.-By TH. RIBOT.- Translated from
the French by J. FITZGERALD, M.A.

Chapter I. Inti oduction.
Chapter II. Organic Disturbance.
Chapter III. Affective Disturbance.

CONTENTS.

Chapter IV. Intellective Disturbance.

Chapter V. Dissolution of Personality.

Chapter VI. Conclusion.

No. 96.

A HALF-CENTURY OF SCI ENCE.- By THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, F.B.S.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE from 1836 to 1 886.-By GRANT ALLEN.

No. 97. ~T~

THE PLEASURES OF LIFE. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M.P..
F.E.S., D.C.L., LL.D.

PAUT FIRST.

CONTENTS.

Chapter L The Duty of Happiness. Chapter VI. The Value of Time.

Chapter II. The Happiness of Duty.
Chapter III. A Song of Books.
Chapter IV. The Choice of Books.
Chapter V. The Blessing of Friends.

.

Chapter VII. The Pleasures of Travel.
Chapter VIII. The Pleasures of Home.
Chapter IX. Science.
Chapter X. Education.

i.

,% PART SECOND. For the contents of Part Second see No. Ill of this Catalogue.

No. 98.

COSMIC EMOTION. -Also, THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE.-By

WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD, F.R.S.

No. 997~

NATURE-STUDIES. Four Essays by various authors, viz.,

! Flame. By Prof. F. R. EATON LOWE.
H. Birds of Passage. By Dr. ROBERT BROWN, F.L.8.
TIT. Snow. By GEORGE G. CHISHOLM, F.R.G.S.
IV -Caves. By JAMES DALLAS, F.L.S.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafay.ette Place. New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

No. 100.

SCIENCE AND POETRY, AND OTHER ESSAYS.-By

ANDREW WILSON, F.R.S.E.

L Science and Poetry. A Valedictory Address to a Literary Society.

The Place, Method, and Advantages of Biology in Ordi
nary Education.

Ill- Science -Culture for the Masses. An Opening Lecture at a
"People s College."

The Law of Likeness, and its Working.

No. 101.

AESTHETICS.^ By JAMES SULLY, M.A.

CONTENTS.

<A). Metaphysical Problems.
(B). Scientific Problems.
<C). History of Systems.

DREAMS. By JAMES SULLY, M.A.

II. German Writers on ^Esthetics.
III. French Writers on ^Esthetics.
IV. Italian and Dutch Writers on ^Esthetics.

V. English Writers on ^Esthetics.

The Sources of Dream-Materials.
Die Order of Dream-Combinations.
The Objective Reality and Intensity of Dream-
Imaginations.

CONTENTS.

The Dream as Immediate Objective Experience.
The Dream as a Communication from a Super
natural Being.
Modern Theory of Dreams.

TO WHICH IS ADDED

ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS. By Prof. GEORGE GROOM EOBERTSON. *

No. 102.

ULTIMATE FINANCE.-A True Theory of Co-operation. -By

WILLIAM NELSON BLACK.

PART FIRST.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. The Origin of Social Discontent.

Chapter IE. Definition of Capital.

Chapter III. Men not Capitalists because not

Creators of Capital.

Chapter IV. Social Results Considered.
Chapter Y. The Evohvtion of Finance.
Chapter VI. Every Man his own Householder.

Chapter VII. Illustrations from Real Life.
Chapter VIII. Effects of Material Growth.
Chapter IX. Objections Answered.
Chapter X. Some Political Reflections.

Appendix. An Act for the Incorporation ot
Bond Insurance Companies.

.,% PART SECOND. For the contents of Part Second see No. 107 of this Catalogue.
No. 103.

1- The Coming Slavery. - The Sins of Legislators. % The Great

Political Superstition. Three Essays by HERBERT SPENCER.

No. 104.

TROPICAL AFRICA. --By HENRY DRUMMOND, LL.D., F.R.S.E V L.G.S.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. The AVater-Route to the Heart of

Africa. The Rivers Zambesi

and Shire.
Chapter II. The East African Lake Country.

Lakes Shirwa and Nyassa.
Chapter III. The Aspect of the Heart of Africa.

The Country and its People,
Chapter IV. The Heart-Disease of Africa. Its

Pathology and Cure.

Chapter Y. Wanderings on the Nyassa-Tangan-
yika Plateau. A Traveler s
Diary.

Chapter VI. The White Ant. A Theory.

Chapter VII. Mimicry. The Ways of African
Insects.

Chapter VIII. A Geological Sketch.

Chapter IX. A Political Warning.

Chapter X. A Meteorological Note.

Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

No. 105.

FREEDOM IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING.- By ERNST HAECKEL,
Professor in the University of Jena. --With a Prefatory tfote by Professor
THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, F.R.S.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Development and Creation.
Chapter II. Certain Proofs of the Doctrine of

Descent.
Chapter III. The Skull Theory and the Ape

Theory.
Chapter IV. The Cell-Soul and the Cellular

Psychology.

V

Chapter V. The Genetic and the Dogmatic
Methods of Teaching.

Chapter VI. The Doctrine of Descent and
Social Democracy.

Chapter VII. Ignorabimus et Restringamur.

No. 106.

FORCE AND ENERGY.-A Theory of Dynamics.- By GRANT ALLEN.

CONTENTS.
PART I. ABSTRACT OR ANALYTIC.

Chapter L-

Chapter II.-

Chapter III.-

Chapter IV.-

Chapter V.-

Chapter VI.-

Chapter VII.-
Chapter VIII.-

Chapter IX.-

- Power.

Force.
-Energy.

-The Species of Force.
-The Species of Energy,
-The Modes of Energy.
-The Kinds of Kinesis.
-The Persistence of Foi ce.
-The Conservation f Energy.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.
Chapter XVII,

-The Indestructibility of Power.
-The Mutual Interference of

Forces.

-The Suppression of Energies.
-Liberating Energies.
- Miscellaneous Illustrations.
-The Dissipation of Energy.
-The Nature of Energy.
-The Nature of Motion.

PART II. CONCRETE OR SYNTHETIC.

Chapter I. Dynamical Formula of the Uni-

Chapter II. The Sidereal System. [verse.

Chapter III. The Solar System.

Chapter IV. The Earth.

Chapter V. Organic Life.

Chapter VI. The Vegetal Organism.

Chapter VII. The Animal Organism. [gies.

Chapter VIII. General View of Mundane Ener-

of Wealth. By

No. 107.

ULTIMATE FINANCE.- A True Theory

WILLIAM NELSON BLACK.

PART SECOND.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. The Origin of Property.

Chapter II. The Evolution of Wealth.

Chapter III. Banking, and its Relation to Accu
mulation.

Chapter IV. The Relation of Insurance to Accu
mulation.

Chapter V. The Creative and Benevolent Feat
ures of Fortune-Hunting.

Chapter VI. Wealth an Enforced Contributor
to the Public Welfare.

Chapter VII. The Impairment and Destruction
of Property.

*% PART FIRST. For the contents of Part First see No. 102 of this Catalogue.

No. 108 and No. 109. No. 108 is a double number, 3O cents.

ENGLISH: PAST AND PRESENT.- A Series of Eight Lectures by
RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin.

CONTENTS.

Lecture I. The English Vocabulary.
Lecture II. English as it might have been.
Lecture III. Gains of the English Language.
Lecture IV. Gains of the English Language

(continued).

Lecture V. Diminutions of the English Lan
guage.

Lecture VI. Diminutions of the English Lan
guage (continued).

Lecture VII. Changes in the Meaning of English
Words.

Lecture VIII. Changes in the Spelling of English
Words.

Index of Subjects. Index of Words and Phrases.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

Double number, 30 cents.

THE STORY OF CREATION.-A Plain Account of Evolution.

By EDWARD CLODD, aut j lor of The Childhood of the World," "The Childhood
of Religions," "The Birth and Growth of Myths," &e. Eighty Illustrations.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. THE UNIVERSE: ITS CONTENTS.

1. Matter. a. Force.

2. Power. b. Energy.

Chapter II. DISTRIBUTION OF MATTER IN

SPACE.

Chapter III. THE SUN AND PLANETS.
The Earth: General Features.

Chapter IV. THE PAST LIFE-HISTORY OF THE

EARTH.
Character and Contents of Rocks of

1. Primary Epoch. 3. Tei-tiary Epoch.

2. Secondary Epoch. 4. Quaternary Epoch.

Chapter V. PRESENT LIFE-FORMS.

Physical Constituents and Unity.

A. Plants.

1. Flowerless. 2. Flowering.

B. Animals.

1. Protozoa. 4. Aimulosa.

2. Coelenterata. 5. Mollusca.

3. Echinodermata. 6. Vertebrata.

Chapter VI. THE UNIVERSE: MODE OF ITS
BECOMING AND GROWTH.

1. Inorganic Evolution. 3. Evolution of the

2. Evolution of the So- Earth.

lav System.

Chapter VII. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Time. Place. Mode.

Chapter VIII. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE-FORMS.
Priority of Plant or Animal.
Cell-Structure and Development.

Chapter IX. THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

Argument :

1. No two individuals of the same species are alike.

Each tends to vary.

2. Variations are transmitted, and therefore tend

to become permanent.

3. Man takes advantage of these transmitted un-

likenesses to produce new varieties of plants
and animals.

4. More organisms are born than survive.

5. The result is obvious : a ceaseless struggle for

place and food.

6. Natural selection tends to maintain the balance

between living things and their surround
ings. These surroundings change ; therefore
living things must adapt themselves thereto,
or perish.

Chapter X. PROOFS OF THE DERIVATION OF
SPECIES.

1. Embryology. 4. Succession in Time.

2. Morphology. 5. Distribution in Space.

3. Classification. Objections.

Chapter XI. SOCIAL EVOLUTION.

1. Evolution of Mind. 4. Evolution of Morals.

2. Evolution of Society. 5. Evolution of Theol-

3. Evolution of Language, ogy.

Arts, and Science. Summary.

No. 111.

THE PLEASURES OF LIFE. By Sir JOHN L^BBOCK, Bart., M.P.,
F.R.S., D.C.L., LL.D.

PART SECOND.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Ambition.

Chapter II. Wealth.

Chapter III. Health.

Chapter IV. Love.

Chapter V. Art.

Chapter VI. Poetry.

Chapter VII Music.

Chapter VIII. The Beauties of Nature.
Chapter IX. The Troubles of Life.
Chapter X. Labor and Best.
Chapter XI. Religion.
Chapter XII. The Hope of Progress.
Chapter XIII. The Destiny of Man.

*% PART FIRST. For the contents of Part First see No. 97 of this Catalogue.

C*

No. 112.

PSYCHOLOGY OF ATTENTION. By TH. BIBOT. Translated from the
French by J. FITZGERALD, M.A.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. Purpose of this treatise: study of
the mechanism of Attention.
Attention defined.

Chapter II. Spontaneous or Natural Attention.
Its cause always affective states.
Its physical manifestations.
Attention simply the subjective
side of the manifestations that
express it. Origin of Sponta
neous Attention.

Chapter III. Voluntary or Artificial Attention.
How it is produced. The three
principal periods of its genesis:

Chapter IV.
Chapter V.-

action of simple feelings, complex
feelings, and habits. Mechanism
of Voluntary Attention. Atten
tion acts only upon the muscles
and through the muscles. The
feeling of effort.

-Morbid States of Attention. Dis
traction. Hypertrophy of Atten
tion. Atrophy of Attention.
Attention in idiots.

Conclusion. Attention dependent
on Affective States. Physical
Condition of Attention.

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

Double number, 3O cents.

HYPNOTISM: ITS HISTORY AND PRESENT DEVELOPMENT.

By FREDRIK BJORNSTROM, M.D., Head Physician of the Stockholm Hospital,
Professor of Psychiatry, late Royal Swedish Medical Councillor. Authorized
Translation from the Second Swedish Edition, by Baron NILS POSSE, M.G.,
Director of the Boston School of Gymnastics.

CONTENTS.

I. Historical Retrospect.
II. Definition of Hypnotism. Susceptibility to

Hypnotism.

III. Means or Methods of Hypnotizing.
IV. Stages or Degrees of Hypnotism.
V. Unilateral Hypnotism.
VI, Physical Effects of Hypnotism.

VII. Psychical Effects of Hypnotism.
VIII. Suggestion.

IX. Hypnotism as a Remedial Agent.
X. Hypnotism as a Means of Education, or

as a Moral Remedy.
XI. Hypnotism and the Law.
XII. Misuses and Dangers of Hypnotism.
Bibliography of Hypnotism.

No. 114. Double number, 3O cents.

CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM.-A Controversy .-Consisting

of papers contributed to The Nineteenth Century by HENRY WAGE, D.D., Prof.
THOMAS H. HUXLEY, THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, W. H. MALLOCK, Mrs.
HUMPHRY WARD.

CONTENTS.

I. On Agnosticism. By HENRY WACE,
D.D., Prebendary of St. Paul s Cathe
dral; Principal of King s College. London.
II. Agnosticism. By Professor THOMAS H.

HUXLEY.
III. Agnosticism. A Reply to Prof . HUXLEY.

By HENRY WACE, D.D.
IV. Agnosticism By W. C. MAGEE, D.D.,

Bishop of Peterborough.
V. Agnosticism. A Rejoinder. By Prof.

THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

VI. Christianity and Agnosticism. By
HENRY WACE, D.D.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

-An Explanation to Prof. Huxley.

By W. C. MAGEE, D.D., Bishop of Peter
borough.

The Value of Witness to the Mirac
ulous. By. Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

Agnosticism and Christianity. By

Prof. THOMAS H. HUXLEY.

-"Cowardly Agnosticism." A Word
with Prof. HuxLEY.-By W.H.MALLOCK.

- The New Reformation. By Mrs.

HUMPHRY WARD.

No. 115 and No. 116. Two double numbers, 3O cents each.

DARWINISM: AN EXPOSITION OF THE THEORY OF NATURAL
SELECTION, with some of its applications. By ALFRED RUSSEL

WALLACE, LL.D., F.L.S.,&c. With Portrait of the Author and many Illustrations.

CONTENTS.

Chapter I. What are "Species," and what is
meant by their Origin."

-The Struggle for Existence.

-The Variability of Species in a
State of Nature.

-Variation of Domesticated Animals
and Cultivated Plants.

-Natural Selection by Variation and
Survival of the Fittest.

-Difficulties and Objections.

-On the Infertility of Crosses be
tween Distinct Species, and the
usual Sterility of their Hybrid
Offspring.

Chapter II.-
Chapter III.-

Chapter IV.-
Chapter V.-

Chapter VI.-
Chapter VII.-

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.-
Chapter X.-

Chapter XL-
Chapter XII. -
Chapter XIII. -
Chapter XIV.-
Chapter XV.-

The Origin and Uses of Color in
Animals.

Wai ning Coloration and Mimicry.

Colors and Ornaments character
istic of Sex.

The Special Colors of Plants.
Their Origin and Pm-pose.

The Geographical Distribution of
Organisms.

The Geological Evidences of Evo-
h^tion.

Fundamental Problems in Rela
tion to Variation and Heredity.

Darwinism applied to Man.

This Catalogue is complete to November, 1889.
No. 117 Trill be issued December 1st.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

LIST OF BOUND BOOKS

OF

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY SERIES.

The prices here given include postage, or express charges, to any part of the worhL

There are over 6,000 pages, octavo, in THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY from the first
number to June, 1889 (No. Ill), and we bind these in two sizes, as follows :-

Style A.

In this style the volumes average 640 pages, and are arranged thus:

Vol. I. contains ....... Numbers 112

II. 13-24

" III. " " 2536

u TV " ll 37 48

JL V * t

V. " 4959

" VI. " 6070

" VII. " 7180

" VIII. " 8191

" IX. " ........ " 92103

X. " 104111

No. 1. Cloth, plain edges, ....... $2.00 per vol.

Sold separately, or in sets.
No. 2. Half seal, marble edges, ...... $2.75 per vol.

Style B.

Nos. 1 to 111, inclusive, are bound in 13 volumes, of 492 pages each (average),
thus :

No. 3. Cloth, extra, red edges, $1.75 per vol. $22.75 per set.

No. 4. Half seal, plain edges, .... 2.25 " " 29.25 "

No. 5. Half seal, marble edges, .... 2.50 " " 32.50 "
No. 6. Half morocco, marble edges, . . . 2.75 " " 33.75 "

Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, are sold only in sets.

*** In the monthly issue the volumes begin -with the January and July numbers, *%

each six numbers making a volume.

WORKS BY CHARLES DARWIN.

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preserva
tion of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. New edition, from the latest
English edition, with additions and corrections. Cloth. . . . $1.25

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. With illustra
tions. New edition, revised and augmented. Cloth $1.50

The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Earth
worms, with Observations on their Habits. Illustrated. Cloth. 75 cents.

A COMPANION-BOOK TO DARWIN S WORKS,

Charles Darwin: His Life and Work. By GRANT ALLEN. Cloth. 75 cents.
Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents*

THE HUMBOLBT LIBRARY

WORKS BY PROFESSOR HUXLEY.

Evidence as to Man s Place in Nature. with numerous illustrations.
On the Origin of Species; or, the Causes of the Phenomena of
Organic Nature.

Two books in one volume. Cloth ........ 75 cents.

The Physical Basis of Life. with other Essays.

Lectures On Evolution. With an Appendix on the Study of Biology.

Two books in one volume. Cloth ........ 75 cents.

Animal Automatism, and other Essays.
Technical Education, and other Essays.

Two books in one volume. Cloth ..... . . .75 cents.

SELECT WORKS OF PROFESSOR JOHN TYNDALL.

Forms of Water in Clouds and Rivers, Ice and Glaciers. Ni

Illustrations.

Lessons in Electricity. Sixty illustrations.
Six Lectures on Light. illustrated.

Three books in one volume. Cloth ....... . . $1.00

WORKS BY HERBERT SPENCER.
The Data of Ethics. Cloth. . 60 cents.

Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical.
Progress: Its Law and Cause. With other Disquisitions.

Two books in one volume. Cloth. . . . . . . .75 cents.

The Genesis of Science.

The Factors of Organic Evolution.

Two books in one volume. Cloth. ....... 75 cents.

SELECT WORKS OF GRANT ALLEN.
The Evolutionist at Large. Vignettes from Nature.

Force and Energy. A Theory of Dynamics.

Three books in one volume. Cloth. . . . $1.00

SELECT WORKS OF RICHARD A. PROCTOR, F.R.A S.

Light Science for Leisure Hours.

Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects.

Hereditary Traits, and other Essays.

Miscellaneous Essays.

Illusions of the Senses, and other Essays.

Notes on Earthquakes, with fourteen Miscellaneous Essays.

Six books in one volume $1.50

Published monthly. $1.5O per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

SELECT WORKS OF WILLIAM KINGDOM CLIFFORD, F.R.A.S.

Seeing and Thinking.

The Scientific Basis of Morals, and other Essays.

Conditions of Mental Development, and other Essays.

The Unseen Universe. Als The Philosophy of the Pure Sciences.

Cosmic Emotion. A1 s, The Teachings of Science.

Five books in one volume. Cloth $1.25

SELECT WORKS OF EDWARD CLODD, F.R.A.S.

The Childhood of Religions.

The Birth and Growth of Myths and Legends.

The Childhood of the World.

Three books in one volume. Cloth. . $1.00

SELECT WORKS OF TH. RIBOT.

Translated from the French by J. FITZGERALD, M.A.

The Diseases of Memory.
The Diseases of the Will.
The Diseases of Personality.

Three books in one volume. Cloth $1.00

THE MILKY WAY.

CONTAINING

The Wonders Of the Heavens. With thirty-two Actinoglyph Illustrations.
By CAMILLE FLAMMARION.

The Romance of Astronomy. B y R- KALLEY MILLER, M.A.

The Sun: Its Constitution; Its Phenomena; Its Condition. By

NATHAN T. CARR, LL.D.

Three books in one volume. Cloth $1.00

POLITICAL SCIENCE.

CONTAINING

Physics and Politics. A n Application of the Principles of Natural Selection

and Heredity to -Political Society. --By WALTER BAGEHOT, author of "The
English Constitution."

History of the Science of Politics. By FREDERICK POLLOCK.

Two books in one volume. Cloth. ... 75 cents.

THE LAND QUESTION.

CONTAINING

The History of Landholding in England. By JOSEPH FISHER, F.R.H.S.

Historical Sketch of the Distribution of Land in England. By

By WILLIAM LLOYD BIRKBECK, M.A.

Two books in one volume. Cloth 75 cents.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

THE HUMBOLDT LIBRARY

SELECT WORKS BY J. ALLANSON PICTON.
The Mystery of Matter. Also, The Philosophy of Ignorance.
The Essential Nature of Religion.

Two books in one volume. Cloth. ....... 75 cents.

SELECT WORKS BY ANDREW WILSON, F.R.S.E.

Science and Crime, and other Essays.
Science and Poetry, and other Essays.

Two "books in one volume. Cloth 75 cents.

SELECT WORKS BY W. MATTIEU WILLIAMS, F.R.A.S., F.C.S.

Current Discussions in Science.

Scientific Aspects of Some Familiar Things.

Two books in one volume. Cloth. 75 cents.

SELECT WORKS BY J. F. C. HECKER, M.D.

The Black Death. An Account of the Deadly Pestilence of the Fourteenth
Century.

The Dancing Mania of the Middle Ages.

Two books in one volume. Cloth 75 cents.

STANDARD WORKS BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.
The Naturalist on the River Amazons. A Record of Adventures, Habits

of Animals, Sketches of Brazilian and Indian Life, and Aspects of Nature under
the Equator, during Eleven Years of Travel. By HENRY WALTER BATES, F.L.S.,
Assistant Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society of England. Cloth. 75 cts.

The Rise and Early Constitution of Universities, with a Survey of

Mediaeval Education. By S. S. LAURIE, LL.D., Professor of the Institutes and
History of Education in the University of Edinburgh. Cloth. ... 75 cents.

The Religions Of the Ancient World: including Egypt, Assyria and
Babylonia, Persia, India, Phoanicia, Etruria, Greece, Rome. By GEORGE RAW-
LINSON, M.A., Canaden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford, and Canon of
Canterbury. Author of "The Origin of Nations," "The Five Great Monarch
ies," &c. Cloth 75 cents..

Fetichism. A Contribution to Anthropology and the History of Religion. By
FRITZ SCHULTZE, Dr.Phil. Translated from the German by J. FITZGERALD,
M.A. Cloth 75 cents.

Published monthly. $1.50 per annum. Single numbers, 15 cents.

OF POPULAR SCIENCE.

STANDARD WORKS BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.
Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. By W. STANLEY JEVONS,

M.A., F.R.S., Professor of Logic and Political Economy in the Owens College,
Manchester, England. Cloth. ........ 75 cents.

On the Study of Words. By RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop
of Dublin. Cloth ............ 75 cents.

The Dawn Of History. An Introduction to Prehistoric Study. Edited by
C. F. KEARY, M. \., of the British Museum. Cloth ..... 75 cents.

Geological Sketches at Home and Abroad. By ARCHIBALD GEIKIE,

LL.D., F.R.S., Director-General of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and
Ireland. Cloth. ........... 75 cents.

Illusions: A Psychological Study. By JAMES SULLY, author of Sensation
and Intuition," "Pessimism," &c. Cloth ....... 75 cents.

The Pleasures of Life. P art ! and Part II. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart.
Two Parts in One. Cloth ....... ; . . . 75 cents.

English, Past and Present. Part I. and Part II. By RICHARD CHENEVIX
TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Two Parts in One. Cloth. . 75 cents.

The Story of Creation. A Plain Account of Evolution. By EDWARD CLODD,
F.R.A.S. With over eighty illustrations ....... 75 cents.

Hypnotism: Its History and Present Development. By FREDRIK

BJORNSTROM, M.D., Head Physician of the Stockholm Hospital, Professor of
Psychiatry, late Royal Swedish Medical Councillor. Cloth. ... 75 cents.

Christianity and Agnosticism. A controversy consisting of papers by HENRY
WAGE, D.D., Prebendary of St. Paul s Cathedral; Principal of King s College,
London. Professor THOMAS H. HUXLEY. W. C. MAGEE, D.D., Bisfrop of Peter
borough. W. H. MALLOCK, Mrs. HUMPHRY WARD. Cloth ..... 75 cents.

Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection,

with some of its applications. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, LL.D., F.L.S.
With portrait of the author and numerous illustrations. Cloth. . . . $1.25

For Tables of the Contents of the foregoing-

List of Bound Books, see the preceding*

Catalogue of monthly publications.

THE HUMBOLDT PUBLISHING CO., 28 Lafayette Place, New York.

BL 2778 .C45 SMC

Christianity and
agnosticism : a
AJZ-0432 (sk)