40 mOCEEmXGS OF THE 



submitted to me. The lecture is entitled '■'■On Our rii/Jit to express 

 our Ideas and the value to Manlind. of that expression.^' 



Speaking of "men who dared to think ditferently from their 

 less-educated or less-original fellows," and who, although perse- 

 cuted in their own age, were honoured in later generations, the 

 manuscript continues: — 



These men I shall designate as "Agnostics" — as differing from the mere 

 Atheist, under this term I comprehend much : I mean it to signify a maa of 

 advanced ideas who coufesses lie has not attained perfect worldly wisdom, wlio 

 admits he does not know all about " God " and " a future state," who is an honest 

 asserter of ignorance on all matters not proTen to him by actual Scientific 

 demonstration, and to whose reflectiTC mind the mere verdict of a majority 

 carries little weight. Which, as joa will see, is precisely the reverse of the 

 word " Gnosis" and of the professions of the old Gnostics (as described by the 

 Rev. Taylor in his Diegesis on page 37) — in several respects — and is also in 

 defiance of those bigoted, all-knowing, persecuting and pitiless imparters of 

 divine revelation whom I would call Torarians from the Hebrew word Torah*. 



The mannscript is signed with the initials " G. W. S.," and is 

 undated. Mr. J. F. Sleeper informs me that his father said the 

 lecture was delivered durmg the latter part of 1846. The date 

 can be inferred by means ot a quotation from the " poet Mackay," 

 who is said to have "just composed the lines — 



" We wonder long 



That hate had power to lead our fathers wrong 

 Or that false glory lured their hearts astray 

 And made it virtuous and sublime to slay." 



Mr. J. !F. Sleeper tells me tiiat these lines form part of a work 

 entitled ' Eailways ' dated 1846. 



The circumstances under which Huxley introduced the word 

 "Agnostic" in 1869 were quoted in last year's Address (pp. 44-5). 

 Although no comparison is possible between the literary form of 

 the two accounts, the line of thought is precisely the same, and 

 adds another to the long series of improbable coincidences in- 

 volved by the hypothesis that the booklet is genuine. But the 

 facts proved in sections 2, 4, and 9 show that it is not genuine, and 

 we are driven to conclude tliat the manuscript is a late fabrica- 

 tion, and that the manner in which the date is revealed without 

 being stated, as well as the addition of " Torarian " are parts of an 

 elaborate scheme intended to throw the critic off his guard. It 

 was probably foreseen that there would be a tendency to argue 

 thus : " The date is so important that a forger would certainly 

 have added it : therefore, as it has not been added, the document is 

 genuine." 



11. The 1860 Pamphlet is inconsistent luith the Booklet 

 dated 1849. 

 It was pointed out on p. 43 of last year's Address that the com- 

 parison between the two pamphlets was unfavourable to the 



* Signifying inspired teaching. 



