CHRISTIANITY AND AGNOSTICISM. 337 



I not only used the expression " the story of the Passion," but I 

 explicitly stated in my reply to him for what purpose I appealed 

 to it. I said that " that story involves the most solemn attesta- 

 tion, again and again, of truths of which an agnostic coolly says 

 he knows nothing"; and I mentioned particularly our Lord's 

 final utterance, " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," as 

 conveying our Lord's attestation in his death agony to his rela- 

 tion to God as his Father. That exclamation is recorded by St. 

 Luke ; but let me remind the reader of what is recorded by St. 

 Mark, upon whom Prof. Huxley mainly relies. There we have 

 the account of the agony in Gethsemane and of our Lord's prayer 

 to his Father ; we have the solemn challenge of the high priest, 

 "Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed ? " and our Lord's reply, 

 " I am ; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand 

 of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," with his imme- 

 diate condemnation, on the ground that in this statement he had 

 spoken blasphemy. On the cross, moreover, St. Mark records his 

 affecting appeal to his Father, " My God, my God, why hast thou 

 forsaken me ? " All this solemn evidence Prof. Huxley puts aside 

 with the mere passing observation that he has " no inclination to 

 argue about the precise accuracy of every detail of that pathetic 

 story of suffering and wrong." But these prayers and decla- 

 rations of our Lord are not mere details ; they are of the very 

 essence of the story of the Passion ; and, whether Prof. Huxley is 

 inclined to argue about them or not, he will find that all serious 

 people will be influenced by them to the end of time, unless they 

 can be shown to be unhistorical. 



At all events, by refusing to consider their import, Prof. Hux- 

 ley has again, in the most flagrant manner, evaded my challenge. 

 I not only mentioned specifically " the story of the Passion," but I 

 explained what I meant by it ; and Prof. Huxley asks us to be- 

 lieve that he does not understand what I referred to ; he refuses 

 to face that story; and he raises an irrelevant issue about the 

 resurrection. It is irrelevant, because the point specifically at 

 issue between us is not the truth of the Christian creed, but the 

 meaning of agnosticism, and the responsibilities which agnosti- 

 cism involves. I say that whether agnosticism be justifiable or 

 not, it involves a denial of the beliefs in which Jesus lived and died. 

 It would equally involve a denial of them had he never risen ; and 

 if Prof. Huxley really thinks, therefore, that a denial of the resur- 

 rection affects the evidence afforded by the Passion, he must be 

 incapable of distinguishing between two successive and entirely 

 distinct occurrences. 



But the manner in which Prof. Huxley has treated this irrele- 

 vant issue deserves perhaps a few words, for it is another charac- 

 teristic specimen of his mode of argument. I note, by the way, 



TOL. XXXV.— 22 



