754 
[December, 
Analyses of Books. 
B. Carpenter, who objedts to the standpoint of Agnosticism as 
“ defective because it takes account of the intellect only,” yet if 
obliged to choose between Agnosticism and Orthodox Theology 
would decidedly prefer the former.” 
But this short essay is noteworthy chiefly for its unconscious, 
and therefore inexpugnable, egotism. Dr. Carpenter writes : 
“ When Agnosticism shall have produced any such philan- 
thropic worker as Mary Carpenter, it may claim to be a motive 
power for good. A.s her brother, intimately conversant with her 
springs of adtion, I feel certain that nothing but her religious 
faith could have carried her through her life of struggle with the 
dead weight of ignorance and prejudice she had to encounter.” 
It is not every writer who would have sought among “ his 
sisters, his cousins, and his aunts ” for a telling example. 
“ The Messrs. Facing-both-ways of Science ” by Dr. Aveling is 
a severe, and as it seems to us an unjustifiable, censure of 
such scientific men as do not proclaim themselves atheists. 
All such are referred to the genus Humbug and the 
species Facing-both-ways. Within this species the author 
recognises the sub-species Scientificus , comprising again two 
varieties, Indijf evens and Religiosus. To the former variety 
are referred “ the great mass of our scientific men. Examples 
are the late Charles Darwin, and, among the living, Ray 
Lankester. At first I had written the names of Huxley and 
Tyndall; but, on refledtion, these gentlemen were struck out, 
for they are such hybrids that it is impossible to classify them 
anywhere. Tyndall in one breath delivers a Belfast address and 
in the next informs an amused world, after a performance sus- 
piciously like a prayer meeting, that he recants. Huxley writes 
boldly against Theism, and is then moved to an almost tearful 
anger when his views are made public.” Dr. Aveling continues : 
“ The characteristics of the sub-species Indifferens are as fol- 
lows : entire unbelief in the supernatural at heart ; 'respectability, 
fear of society ; conformity to its usages ; the idea that a belief 
in the supernatural is necessary for the lower classes ; silence 
upon the fundamental questions at issue between the Theistic 
and Atheistic world. . . . We also know what the majority of 
our professors think of the Christian religion, and yet we cannot 
get them to speak out.” 
It may here be asked how the author knows so exadtly what 
the majority of our professors believe ? If, further, “ we all 
know” their opinions, what more need for “speaking out ” can 
remain ? 
If we, for argument’s sake, suppose that the bulk of scientific 
men are, at heart, entire disbelievers in the supernatural, we 
can very well imagine them concluding that the progress of 
science is of vastly more moment than the success of an Atheistic 
propaganda, and keeping silence in the knowledge that any 
such “ speaking out ” would discredit science with the majority 
