AGNOSTICISM. 755 



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 untrustworthy, how can we be sure of its trust- 

 worthiness in other cases ? The favorite " earth," in which the 

 hard-pressed reconciler takes refuge, that the Bible does not pro- 

 fess to teach science,* is stopped in 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 con- 

 trary 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 to be supposed all that 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 



* 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 matter is contained, is enabled 

 to judge whether it is to be taken au sericux or not ? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted 

 as true in the Xew Testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, 

 also accepted as true therein ? By what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in 

 the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant 

 merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the law on stone by the hand 

 of Jahvoh is literally true ? If the story of the Fall is not the true record of an historical 

 occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology ? Yet the story of the Fall as directly con- 

 flicts 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. 



