ON THE UNREASONABLENESS OF AGNOSTICISM. i i 



Hassell has done. Of course, it is perfectly true that God is, in one 

 sense, unknowable ; but so are many of the other things we are, neverthe- 

 less, most certain of. Our knowledge of the majority of subjects is relative, 

 and does not amount to absolute certainty. For instance, no one man 

 thoroughly knows another ; we none of us know anything of the forces of 

 nature ; no one pretends that he fully knows any of those sciences of which 

 we are so proud ; and yet, we have amply sufficient knowledge to regulate 

 our lives. To nineteen out of every twenty persons, the idealistic hypo- 

 thesis of Bishop Berkeley is something so absurd that it is very difficult to 

 grasp ; and yet. Bishop Berkeley was much nearer the mark, as a matter of 

 absolute logic, than Mr. Herbert Spencer. It is of no use for us to shut our 

 eyes to the fact that there is another and a more obstinate cause of agnos- 

 ticism, and that this lies in the will, and not in the intellect. It is more 

 and more evident to those who carefully inquire into the reason for the 

 agnosticism of the present day, that the real difficulty lies in the will, and 

 not in the intellect. It would seem that there is not that will on the part of the 

 agnostics to know God's will, which is the condition precedent of the know- 

 ledge of Christ. I do not mean to say this in the way of harsh j udgment upon 

 those with whom I differ ; but I do feel that it is our duty, in dealing with 

 our fellow men, to lead them, if possible, to ask themselves — do they really 

 want to understand this important question ? It is of no use to try and 

 teach science to a parcel of country labourers, if they do not wish to be 

 taught, or, if they simply will not learn, because they do not care to know, and 

 merely say, "what is that to oi"? That class of persons represents the 

 type of which I was speaking just now, and I repeat, that it is useless to 

 speak of anything to a man who has the best, or rather, the worst, of all 

 reasons for not wanting to understand that which it would be exceedingly 

 uncomfortable for him to comprehend and have a knowledge of. You do 

 not suppose it is a very easy thing to make a man understand the law he has 

 broken. The singular want of intelligence in a section of the British 

 mind with regard to questions of our civil law, is wonderful to trace ; 

 but this want of intelligence is much more amazing in the case of the 

 Divine law. When we consider the question of readiness to do God's Will, 

 we must regard it on the widest possible basis. I do not mean that this 

 defect of the will merely attaches to those who are outrageously breaking the 

 Ten Commandments ; because it may be an assertion of a more subtle 

 spiritual pride, which really underlies a great deal of the agnosticism of the 

 present day. I have already spoken of our late President, and I think we 

 cannot but feel that, in his case, the absolute surrender of a free intellect 

 was an act of will — that the anxiety to know and do God's will was the real 

 foundation of his faith . Of course, one finds the same thing in every-day 

 life. There is the obstinate impossibility of understanding which we so 

 constantly meet with. When a person cannot afford to understand us, we 

 have got the best comment we could have on agnosticism itself. If I may 

 allude to a matter that is, at the present moment, somewhat prominent in 

 VOL. XX. a 



