180 



around us, the Book of Nature, and yet which, in truth, is a book writ- 

 ten in plainest lines in every page, should, since they both have come 

 from the same great source, be rather attributed to a lack of skill in 

 those who attempt to read them ; since if we accept the statement that 

 the Bible is the word of God, and the other statement, which is equally 

 true, that there is an overruling force which controls the phenomena of 

 Nature, in accordance with certain fixed and. in some cases at least, well 

 known laws, the interpretation of such phenomena should, if correct, 

 agre« in their essentials even though viewed from different standpoints. 



The term Agnostic, which now-a-days one frequently hears, has of 

 late years assumed considerable prominence, and possibly more than it 

 really deserves. The derivation of the word is from the Greek, and 

 literally means one without knowledge. In its ordinary acceptation, 

 however, it is held to signify one without definite knowledge of the 

 Creator or God, or of the plan of creation. If we take the word in the 

 broad and natural sense it has no meaning at all as applied to mankind, 

 since every one is supposed to possess at least a certain amount of in- 

 formation, while no one is held to be perfect in every branch of know- 

 ledge. 



Tf, on the other hand, we limit its meaning to those who have a 

 lack of knowledge of the fundamental truths of theology, we, as Chris- 

 tians, must also, even from our own standpoint, to say nothing of that 

 of the scientist, properly so called, acknowledge ourselves worthy the 

 title in certain respects, since many of the accepted tenets of Christian 

 belief are articles of faith only, and are not susceptible of actual demon- 

 stration. Though we may claim we have a clear conception of the 

 plan of Creation according to the scheme laid down in Genesis, the 

 exceeding terseness of the scheme as there Dresented is such that we 

 know that it cannot be taken in its literal sense, and the theologian 

 is indebted to the scientist for the presentation of more light upon a 

 question which has produced much unnecessary, and often unseemly, 

 controversy. When such uncertainty exists, therefore, it does not, to 

 many, seem the wisest course that anyone should dogmatically assert 

 any particular line of doctrine, and claim for himself infallibility in its 

 interpretation, especially when the data given are confessedly so imper- 

 fect. It is, therefore, easily seen that this term aynostic is one exceed- 





