48 



CONSTAN'CE L. MAYNARD OS 



modernist ideas, but afterwards, in maturity, investigating for 

 herself the current thoughts which spring up around us. 



I am m hearty sympathy with her remark (p. 44), that you won't 

 win those who have leanings to destructive criticism and agnos- 

 ticism if you are simply shocked- Sympathy, experience, and 

 wisdom should be freely and wisely employed. 



Many minds, especially young ones, are apt to blindly follow the 

 teaching of some respected leader without the exercise of any 

 thought or judgment themselves. This is true both for Christians 

 and for unbelievers. Some remain in this condition all their lives, 

 but others, as they grow older, take the trouble to investigate for 

 themselves. I often think it would be- a great gain if more Christ- 

 ian leaders were themselves much more deeply taught than most 

 of them are at present, in science and in the methods of modern 

 thought. They would then be able to lend a helping hand to those 

 in intellectual difficulties and lead them out of dark tunnels 

 (pp. 34 and 44). Miss Maynard has thought for herself and (under 

 divine guidance) with faith more firmly established. It is the aim 

 and object of the Victoria Institute to help all of us to do the same. 



Some of her statements are, however, surely too sweeping for 

 strict accuracy ; for instance (p. 37) ^yitchcraft and a thousand 

 superstitions" have not all fallen, even now. Science cannot truly 

 be found to have always won (p. 37). Miss Maynard's want of 

 care (p. 34) for the evidences of monuments and inscriptions will 

 hardly, I think, commend itself to most thoughtful minds. How can 

 a thing (p. 34) be said to have a soul? Would not the word spirit 

 he more correct than soid on pp. 33, 36. and 42 ? And the words 

 two transparent and colourless liquids than two white liquids 

 (p. 42)? 



The simile of the kernel and the husk, or shell, so frequently 

 used (pp. 34, 35, 36. 44) in the paper before us seems to be an unfor- 

 tunate one to use. because it lends itself to the popular dictum 

 that the Bible only contains the word of God (the kernel) mixed 

 up with much of man's fallible work (the husk). Our author, 

 however, apparently guards herself (pp. 43. 45) against this inter- 

 pretation by her statement that the Bible 15 the word of God ; by 

 which she means, I take it, that all in it, both kernel and husk, is 

 indeed the word of God ; but if this is her meaning it does not 

 seem to be a happy expression that part of the word of God is 

 husk or shell I 



I do not feel sure that our author (pp. 33. 37) has given the best 

 explanation of the difficulties raised by ethical criticism, nor do I 

 feel convinced that a fair comparison can be made between the 

 human race in its earlier stages and a present-day child. 



I quite agree that specialists and critics have their uses, but 

 they also have their limitations, chiefly consisting of a certain 



