AGNOSTICISM. 75 ^ 



Peterborougli departed so far from his customary courtesy and 

 self-respect as to speak of "cowardly agnosticism" (p, 2G2). 



So much of Dr. Wace's address either explicitly or implicitly 

 concerns me, that I take upon myself to deal with it ; but, in so 

 doing, it must be understood that I speak for myself alone ; I am 

 not aware that there is any sect of Agnostics ; and if there be, I 

 am not its 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 appre- 

 ciation of agnosticism. The agnostic, according to his view, is a 

 person who says he has no means of attaining a scientific knowl- 

 edge 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 for the present it may pass. Dr. 

 Wace continues, that 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 proposition. 



The real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic " does not 

 believe the authority " on which " these things " are stated, which 

 authority is 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 solu- 

 tion of the problem ; and it has that advantage of being some- 

 what offensive to the persons attacked, which is so dear to the 

 less refined sort of controversialist. The agnostic says, " I can not 

 find good evidence that so and so is true." " Ah," says his adver- 

 sary, 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 ! " 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 lit- 

 erary critic. It is a problem of immense difficulty, which has 



