VII 



AGNOSTICISM 219 



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 trustworthiness in other cases ? 

 The favourite " earth," in which the hard-pressed 

 reconciler takes refuge, that the Bible does not 

 profess to teach science, 1 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 de- 

 mons, 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 



1 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 serieux or not ? Is the account of the 

 Deluge, accepted as true in the New 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 Jahveh 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. 



