AGNOSTICISM. 67 



that the profession of belief " in such narratives as that of the 

 devils entering a herd of swine, or of the fig-tree that was blasted 

 for bearing no figs, npon the evidence on which multitudes of 

 Christians believe it, " is immoral " ; and the observation which 

 followed, that " theological apologists would do well to consider 

 the fact that, in the matter of intellectual veracity, Science is al- 

 ready a long way ahead of the churches," has the same " advan- 

 tage." I repeat that I can not but treat Prof. Huxley as an exam- 

 ple of the more refined sort of controversialist ; it must be sup- 

 posed, therefore, that when he speaks of observations or insinua- 

 tions which are somewhat offensive to the " persons attacked " 

 being dear to the other sort of controversialists, he is unconscious 

 of his own methods of controversy — or, shall I say, his own temp- 

 tations ? 



But I desire as far as possible to avoid any rivalry with Prof. 

 Huxley in these refinements — more or less — of controversy ; and 

 am, in fact, forced by pressure both of space and of time to keep as 

 rigidly as possible to the points directly at issue. He proceeds to 

 restate the case as follows : " The agnostic says, ' I can not find 

 good evidence that so and so is true/ ' Ah/ says his adversary, 

 seizing his opportunity, ' then you declare that Jesus Christ was 

 untruthful, for he said so and so ' — a very telling method of rousing 

 prejudice." Now that superior scientific veracity to which, as we 

 have seen, Prof. Huxley lays claim, should have prevented him 

 putting such vulgar words into my mouth. There is not a word 

 in my paper to charge agnostics with declaring that Jesus Christ 

 was " untruthful." I believe it impossible in these days for any 

 man who claims attention— I might say, for any man — to declare 

 our Lord untruthful. What I said, and what I repeat, is that the 

 position of an agnostic involves the conclusion that Jesus Christ 

 was under an " illusion " in respect to the deepest beliefs of his 

 life and teaching. The words of my paper are, " An agnosticism 

 which knows nothing of the relation of man to God must not only 

 refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching, but must 

 deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in which he lived and 

 died." The point is this — that there can, at least, be no reasonable 

 doubt that Jesus Christ lived, and taught, and died, in the belief 

 of certain great principles respecting the existence of God, our re- 

 lation to God, and his own relation to us, which an agnostic says 

 are beyond the possibilities of human knowledge ; and of course 

 an agnostic regards Jesus Christ as a man. If so, he must neces- 

 sarily regard Jesus Christ as mistaken, since the notion of his 

 being untruthful is a supposition which I could not conceive being 

 suggested. The question I have put is not, as Prof. Huxley repre- 

 sents, what is the most unpleasant alternative to belief in the 

 primary truths of the Christian religion, but what is the least un- 



