I884.J 
Analyses of Books. 
99 
2? 'with no”.* a ‘ ° nCe> With * he Wh °' e 0f the correspondence 
Mi. Stewart Ross combats the impression that “Agnostic ” is 
a name adopted by certain “ advanced thinkers that* they mav 
evade the popular odium of Atheist.” He asks “Am T Th P i J 
or Atheist ? Define Theos, and I will tell you The tub! Jcould 
now only be discussed in a tap-room.” ' J d 
of h!’; ^•^•^ a y! or > tutelary genius, if we remember rightly 
of the Aoti- Vaccinationists, replies to the two former questions 
very mueh in the same manner as does Prof. Huxley To the 
third he answers, ‘‘Agnosticism being, as I take it/pLly net 
tlV p’ T/r see hoW lt: can su PpMnt anything.” 
1 rot. b . W Newman, who declares himself not an Agnostic 
portant To °he X lhat S0Tr } ethin S can be known, and is im- 
Lt query “ H God ’” SayS ’ aS touching the 
Science ” 7 hP i \ Modern Science is meant Materialistic 
Science, he cannot imagine that any discord between its re 
to ChristUn Thcnf tlC1Sr ? c0u,d fl be possible. On the contrary, 
to Christian Theology it is a flat contradiction. That it wil 
upplant Super-naturalism he considers doubtful. He points to 
the mterest taken in “the ever-changing form of Splituali m ° 
and reminds us that in Ancient Greece and Rome a belief in 
populaf rehgfon n ” Cr0manCy lncreased as fast as disbelief in the 
Pi of. Haeckel thinks that his Monism “ agrees in all 
Dresp S ^bat philosophy of Nature which in England is re- 
nno Gt i 7 Agnosticism.’ He does not venture to decide the 
M! James Beal considers that the chances in favour of the 
smafi He refe ffn ° StiCi T by >he ma i“ ri V are for the moment 
, ' refeis > in confirmation of his view, to “the revival 
and comparatively rapid spread of Theosophy.” 
full If ian u h °r lds that Agnosticism is “ quite as dangerous and 
full of mischief as theological faith.” ** us an d 
den^offlm t RL S a T d S that r th ? “ C 7 rch Agnostic,” as the Presi- 
o-erm, nf nnf R 7 v 7 terms lf ’ Carries in its bosom the 
b erm s of not a few divergent secfts ? 
ther^TT’ Strik ,-n Us , as re S ards the Introduction. We read 
hinkers " wZld ?' T i em ’.” and of “ a 'l liberal 
the tmmAMS' b n e 0t us:fuf? mt ‘ 0n ’ " * ,e “‘ ' of 
