226 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



month, and, though I am now better, I must avoid every mental 

 tax, however small. 



I did not receive the journal which you named in your last, 

 containing some matter respecting Dr. Abbott's address (I think 

 it was). Very truly yours, 



Herbert Spencer. 



J. A. Skilton, Esq. 



LETTER OF PROFESSOR HUXLEY. 



Eastbourne, England, December 10, 1889. 



Dear Sir : I have read the papers which accompanied your 

 letter of the 25th of November with much attention ; but, I regret 

 to say, with the result that I can discover no good ground for the 

 change of nomenclature which you propose. Permit me to trouble 

 you with my reasons for that conclusion : 



The term " Agnostic " was not suggested by the passage in the 

 " Acts of the Apostles " in which Paul speaks of an inscription to 

 the " Unknown God" (dyvwo-ro) 0e<p). It is obvious that the author 

 of that inscription was a theist — I may say an anxious theist — 

 who desired not to offend any God, not known to him, by ignor- 

 ing the existence of such a deity. The person who erected the 

 altar was, therefore, in the same position as those philosophers 

 who, in modern times, have brought about the apotheosis of igno- 

 rance under the name of the " Absolute " or its equivalents. 



" Agnostic " came into my mind as a fit antithesis to " Gnos- 

 tic " — the " Gnostics " being those ancient heretics who professed 

 to know most about those very things of which I am quite sure I 

 know nothing. 



" Agnostic," therefore, as the name of a philosophical system 

 is senseless ; its import lies in being a confession of ignorance — a 

 warning set up against philosophical and theological phantoms — 

 which was never more needed than at the present time, when the 

 ghost of the " Absolute " slain by my masters Hume and Kant 

 and Hamilton is making its appearance in broad daylight. 



Your definition of " metagnosticism " says that it " relates to 

 beyond-knowledge." That is exactly what all the "absolute" 

 philosophers profess the u Absolute " does ; and it is precisely that 

 profession which I consider to be futile and mischievous. To my 

 mind science is exact and organized knowledge — neither more nor 

 less. And the knowledge which goes "beyond knowledge" is 

 something which my cognitive faculties do not enable me to ap- 

 prehend. 



The term " Evolution Philosophy " which you employ seems 

 to have different meanings for different people. 



For me, evolution is a name for a certain process, the occur- 

 rence of which in various groups of things is as nearly demon- 

 strated as any historical event can be. And this, I think, consti- 



