AGNOSTICISM. 83 



" in the name of all that is Hibernian, why a man should be ex- 

 pected to call himself a miscreant or an infidel " ? I might reply- 

 to this after the alleged fashion of my countrymen by asking him 

 another question, namely — When or where did I ever say that I 

 expected him to call himself by either of these names ? I can not 

 remember having said anything that even remotely implied this, 

 and I do not therefore exactly see why he should appeal to my 

 confused " Hibernian " judgment to decide such a question. 



As he has done so, however, I reply that I think it unreason- 

 able to expect a man to call himself anything unless and until 

 good and sufficient reason has been given him why he should do 

 so. We are all of us bad judges as to what we are and as to what 

 we should therefore be called. Other persons classify us according 

 to what they know, or think they know, of our characters or 

 opinions, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. And were 

 I to find myself apparently incorrectly classified, as I very often 

 do, I should be quite content with asking the person who had so 

 classified me, first to define his terms, and next to show that these, 

 as defined, were correctly applied to me. If he succeeded in doing 

 this, I should accept his designation of me without hesitation, 

 inasmuch as I should be sorry to call myself by a false name. 



In this case, accordingly, if I might venture a suggestion to 

 Prof. Huxley, it would be that the term " infidel " is capable of 

 definition, and that when Dr. Wace has defined it, if the professor 

 accept his definition, it would remain for them to decide between 

 them whether Prof. Huxley's utterances do or do not bring him 

 under the category of infidels, as so defined. Then, if it could be 

 clearly proved that they do, from what I know of Prof. Huxley's 

 love of scientific accuracy and his courage and candor, I certainly 

 should expect that he would call himself an infidel — and a mis- 

 creant too, in the original and etymological sense of that unfor- 

 tunate term, and that he would even glory in those titles. If 

 they should not be so proved to be applicable, then I should 

 hold it to be as unreasonable to expect him to call himself by such 

 names as he, I suppose, would hold it to be to expect us Chris- 

 tians to admit, without better reason than he has yet given us, 

 that Christianity is " the sorry stuff " which, with his " pro- 

 foundly " moral readiness to say " unpleasant " things, he is 

 pleased to say that it is. 



There is another reference to myself, however, in the pro- 

 fessor's article as to which I feel that he has a better right to 

 appeal to me — or, rather, against me, to the readers of this re- 

 view — and that is, as to my use, in my speech at the Manchester 

 Congress, of the expression " cowardly agnosticism." I have not 

 the report of my speech before me, and am writing, therefore, 

 from memory ; but my memory or the report must have played 



