AGNOSTICISM. 



771 



tinctive faith, I have already shown that it can not possibly be 

 anything of the kind ; unless perfect faith in logic is distinctive 

 of agnostics, which, after all, it may be. 



Agnosticism as a religious philosophy _per se rests on an almost total ignoriog 

 of history and social evolution (p. 152). 



But neither per se nor per aliud has agnosticism (if I know 

 anything about it) the least pretension to be a religious phi- 

 losophy ; so far from resting on ignorance of history, and that 

 social evolution of which history is the account, it is and has 

 been the inevitable result of the strict adherence to scientific 

 methods by historical investigators. Our forefathers were quite 

 confident about the existence of Romulus and Remus, of King 

 Arthur, and of Hengst and Horsa. Most of us have become 

 agnostics in regard to the reality of these worthies. It is a matter 

 of notoriety, of which Mr. Harrison, who accuses us all so freely 

 of ignoring history, should not be ignorant, that the critical pro- 

 cess which has shattered the foundations of orthodox Christian 

 doctrine owes its origin, not to the devotees of physical science, 

 but, before all, to Richard Simon, the learned French Oratorian, 

 just two hundred years ago. I can not find evidence that either 

 Simon, or any one of the great scholars and critics of the eight- 

 eenth and nineteenth centuries who have continued Simon's work, 

 had any particular acquaintance with physical science. I have 

 already pointed out that Hume was independent of it. And 

 certainly one of the most potent influences in the same direc- 

 tion, upon history in the present century, that of Grote, did not 

 come from the physical side. Physical science, in fact, has had 

 nothing directly to do with the criticism of the Gospels; it is 

 wholly incompetent to furnish demonstrative evidence that any 

 statement made in these histories is untrue. Indeed, modern 

 physiology can find parallels in nature for events of apparently 

 the most eminently supernatural kind recounted in some of those 

 histories. 



It is a comfort to hear, upon Mr. Harrison's authority, that the 

 laws of physical nature show no signs of becoming " less definite, 

 less consistent, or less popular as time goes on" (p. 154). How a 

 law of nature is to become indefinite, or " inconsistent," passes my 

 poor powers of imagination. But with universal suffrage and the 

 coach-dog theory of premiership in full view ; the theory, I mean, 

 that the whole duty of a political chief is to look sharp for the 

 way the social coach is driving, and then run in front and bark 

 loud — as if being the leading noise-maker and guiding were the 

 same things — it is truly satisfactory to me to know that the laws 

 of nature are increasing in popularity. Looking at recent devel- 

 opments of the policy which is said to express the great heart of 



