752 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



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 eviden- 

 tial value. 



" What made the Mohammedan world ? Trust and faith in 

 the declarations and assurances of Mohammed. And what made 

 the Christian world ? Trust and faith in the declarations and 

 assurances of Jesus Christ and his apostles" (Joe. cit, p. 253). The 

 triumphant tone of this imaginary catechism leads me to suspect 

 that its author has hardly appreciated its full import. Presuma- 

 bly, 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 Moham- 

 medan world," in just the same sense as they have " made the 

 Christian 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 prac- 

 tical 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 thor- 

 oughly to the root of the whole matter ; the question of the day 

 is so completely, as the author of "Robert Elsmere" says, the 

 value of testimony, 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 con- 

 sideration 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. 



* Dr. Wacs 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 appro- 

 priately 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. Ilowever, 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 state- 

 ment, I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with re- 

 marking that if II. Kenan were to retract and do penance in Notre Dame to-morrow for 

 any contributions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results 

 of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Keuss, and Volkmar, 

 for example, would not be sensibly affected. 



