281 
Mr. Arnold to call by tbat name.* Now I venture to think that 
such a mode of dealing with the Christian, or in fact with any 
other religion, is not a fair one. Unless a man claims to be 
himself a prophet, to be a man endowed with a supernatural 
authority from on high — qualifications which Mr. Arnold 
would not only disclaim, but which he very distinctly affirms 
to be unattainable by man — he has no right whatever, as I 
have already observed, to require us to accept his ipse dixit.f 
His arguments must be like mathematical formulae, which 
can be applied, not only by their discoverer, but by all 
other men. And therefore, instead of asserting that this or 
that is original Judaism or original Christianity, and this 
or that is Aberglaube or extra-belief, Mr. Arnold should have 
furnished us with canons of criticism unfailing in their 
operation, by which we should be capable of “ verifying ” 
his conclusions for ourselves. Otherwise, it is quite possible 
that among the things not “ verifiable/'’ and therefore not 
binding upon our acceptance, may be found not a few pro- 
positions advanced by Mr. Arnold himself. 
13. Let us then observe Mr. Arnold’s mode of dealing Avith 
the Scriptures. First, he rejects Prophecy. Let us inquire 
on what grounds. First, he tells us that there is “ nothing 
blamable ” in men “ taking short cuts, by the help of their 
imagination, to what they ardently desire, and telling them- 
selves fairy tales about it.” Then he goes on to defend presenti- 
ments, and informs us that they “ may be true.” But when 
he comes to deal Avith the question Avhether prophecy has 
really been uttered or not, he takes tAVO or three prophecies 
which have been disputed, assumes that his own interpretation 
* He admits the extreme difficulty of entering into a critical examination 
of the Scriptures, and excuses himself from the task by saying that he is 
not called upon to enter upon it (pp. 176, 180, 283, 287, 288). But, surely, 
if any one is called upon to undertake this task, and to carry it out most 
thoroughly, it is the man Avho insists so much upon the necessity of sifting 
the Scriptures, and of separating the bushels of chaff from the grains of 
wheat therein. 
t He makes an attempt at some sort of demonstration in p. 335, but it 
resolves itself into an ipse dixit at last. “ The more Ave know of the 
history of ideas and expressions, the more Ave are convinced that” the 
account of their faith ordinarily given by Christians, “ is not, and cannot be, 
the true one.” Why ? Mr. Arnold does not tell us. He goes off into an 
inquiry what Dr. Newman’s opinions might have been if that divine had 
been “ born twenty years later, and touched Avith the breath of the Zeit- 
Geist." An interesting line of inquiry, no doubt, but hardly, one would 
think, germane to his subject. He next touches lightly and gracefully upon 
the Homeric poetry, and then winds up with the apophthegm, “ Demonstra- 
tion in such matters is impossible,” in Avhich he is doubtless quite right. 
