84 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



me sadly false if I am made to describe all agnostics as cowardly. 

 A much slighter knowledge than I possess of Prof. Huxley's writ- 

 ings would have certainly prevented my applying to all agnos- 

 ticism or agnostics such an epithet. 



What I intended to express, and what I think I did express by 

 this phrase was, that there is an agnosticism which is cowardly. 

 And this I am convinced that there is, and that there is a great 

 deal of it too, just now. There is an agnosticism which is simply 

 the cowardly escaping from the pain and difficulty of contem- 

 plating and trying to solve the terrible problems of life by the 

 help of the convenient phrase, " I don't know," which very often 

 means " I don't care." " We don't know anything, don't you 

 know, about these things. Prof. Huxley, don't you know, says 

 that we do not, and I agree with him. Let us split a B. and S." 



There is, I fear, a very large amount of this kind of agnos- 

 ticism among the more youthful professors of that philosophy, 

 and indeed among a large number of easy-going, comfortable men 

 of the world, as they call themselves, who find agnosticism a 

 pleasant shelter from the trouble of thought and the pain of effort 

 and self-denial. And if I remember rightly it was of such agnos- 

 tics I was speaking when I described them as " chatterers in our 

 clubs and drawing-rooms," and as " freethinkers who had yet to 

 learn to think." 



There is therefore in my opinion a cowardly agnosticism just 

 as there is also a cowardly Christianity. A Christian who spends 

 his whole life in the selfish aim of saving his own soul, and never 

 troubles himself with trying to help to save other men, either 

 from destruction in the next world or from pain and suffering 

 here, is a cowardly Christian. The eremites of the early days of 

 Christianity, who fled away from their place in the world where 

 God had put them, to spend solitary and, as they thought, safer 

 lives in the wilderness, were typical examples of such cowardice. 

 But in saying that there is such a thing as a cowardly Chris- 

 tianity, I do not thereby allege that there is no Christianity which 

 is not cowardly. Similarly, when I speak of a cowardly agnos- 

 ticism, I do not thereby allege that there is no agnosticism which 

 is not cowardly, or which may not be as fearless as Prof. Huxley 

 has always shown himself to be. 



I hope that I have now satisfied the professor on the two points 

 on which he has appealed to me. There is much in the other 

 parts of his article which tempts me to reply. But I have a dis- 

 like to thrusting myself into other men's disputes, more especially 

 when a combatant like Dr. Wace, so much more competent than 

 myself, is in the field. I leave the professor in his hands, with 

 the anticipation that he will succeed in showing him that a scien- 

 tist dealing with questions of theology or biblical criticism may 



