Mr. Balfour's Attack on Agnosticism II T. H.

Huxley [Galley proof from Houston Peterson: Huxley: Prophet of Science] [1] Before proceeding with the further consideration of the view of the relations between natural science and philosophy, and the accuracy of the portrait of Agnosticism presented in the Foundations of Belief, I think it desirable to deal with a passage in which Mr Balfour does me the honour to associate me with Mr J. S. Mill and Mr H. Spencer as one who has played "unconscious havoc with the most solid results which empirical methods have hitherto attained" (p. 121). As I have much reason to doubt whether what Mr Balfour understands by 'empirical methods' has anything to do with scientific method, as I have still more reason to think that he is extensively and profoundly unacquainted with what I have written, I am not disposed to dwell upon the substance of the charge. But perhaps it is needful that I should repeat here the expression of profound obligation to the study of Mr Mill's Logic that I have published elsewhere, if only that my objection to be held responsible for any of Mr Mill's opinions to which I have not expressly assented should be deprived of any appearance of want of respect for a teaches to whom I owe much. My relations with Mr Spencer's philosophy are of a totally different order. Thanks to Hamilton and Mill, the fundamental principles of what is now understood as Agnosticism were clearly fixed in my mind when, in 1850, I returned to England with a well-studied copy of Mill'sLogic, which, along with Carlyle's Essays and some volumes of Goethe and Dante, had shared my little cabin for four years, in each of which many months were spent in almost entire isolation. Consequently, when I had the pleasure of making Mr Spencer's acquaintance in 1852, it was with much satisfaction that I found we stood on common ground; and no one could have welcomed First Principles so far as its critical positions are concerned, more warmly than I did. But even then Mr Spencer appeared to me to be disposed to travel along the path–by which, as I conceived, Hamilton had been led astray–further than I was. And in the forty-three years which have elapsed the divergence of opinion thus marked has unfortunately become greater and greater, until now we are speculatively (I hope in no other way) poles asunder. It is impossible for me to approve the a priori method, to admit that Mr Spencer's form of the doctrine of evolution is well founded; or to accept the ethical and political deductions which he makes from that doctrine.

unless as the development of the energy of the cosmos according to fixed principles towards a definite result? Suppose. reason is to be found neither in the beginning of things nor in their end. They present five pairs of antinomies so bound together in their antagonism. for a moment. so far as I can understand. either among agnostics or following natural science. Reason with a capital R. and though everything is pre-determined nothing is fore-ordained. according to natural science. and of the admirable courage and tenacity of purpose with which he carried out to completion the task he set himself when we two were young men with life all before us. that I must treat them as Siamese twins and take each pair together. A. B. the faculty of intuitive apprehension of being quite sure about things of which there is no scientific evidence. pitched in such a high key of rationality that human reason has not yet shown itself adequate to conceive them–no tadpole would ever emerge from the egg. If. and what I have felt bound to say in order to put an end to further confessions of this sort. which means. that the whole solar system was once represented by an ocean of similar molecules. for B. unless the energy which set these molecules in motion followed fixed rules of action–unless in that it operated rationally–the solar system could never come out of it. in English.Though I have nothing to say to Cartesianism. reason is absent from the universe. In these first articles of the catechism there appears to me to be the same tendency as elsewhere to employ terms of which the sense is left ambiguous. 'Reason' now. [2] I. If Mr Balfour. So far as we are concerned. I now turn to the consideration of the two remarkable catechisms in which Mr Balfour has stated to his mind the leading doctrines of Demonism (A) and of Naturalism (B). Unless the arrangement of the parts and the disposition of the latent forces of the germ of a frog were rational–nay. 'laws of nature' which are expressions in terms of reason of the order of nature? How is evolution conceivable. and all things work together towards a reasonable end. Vernunft. promoted to a capital R in A but reduced to the ranks in B–what does that muchmisused word signify ? There is the grand sense of [Logos]. The Universe is the creation of Reason. I shall not be charged with any want of appreciation of the genius and merits of Descartes. To me the former of the two propositions which it contains is absurd. how is it that men of science talk about. does not appear to me to be inconsistent with [a similar] high appreciation of Mr Spencer's abilities. I am really curious to know where Mr Balfour found his authority. by the .

the rational order of things was maintained. and outside that of ætherial fire. tells me that it created the universe. If this argumentation is sound. so far from denying the existence of reason in the universe. but has a very ancient precedent in Greek Philosophy. and of which an account. that the conscious ratiocinative process is but the expression of the order and nature of the series of changes in the material substratum of consciousness. Ordinary usage spells reason with a little r. is found in the text-books of Logic. in this sense. by the intermediation of the pneuma (a spirit that is subtlest air) diffused through all things and peculiarly resident in the human (especially the philosophic) mind. it follows that the series of mental phenomena which represents a conscious ratiocination has for its necessary antecedent a parallel series of material phenomena. from my point of view. There may be endless other ways of arriving at the results which we attain through consciousness. the latter is merely the symbol of that which is the essential operation. perfectly rational acts are performed without conscious ratiocination. there is another important consideration. and any transformation of modes of motion into consciousness inconceivable. induction. and denotes by it the mental process. natural science must regard it as reason in excelsis–a reason so far superior to that incarnate in man. not factors. every state of consciousness has for its antecedent a state of nervous matter. And granting this. but I do not see convincing evidence of the fact. I can only say that it may be so. that the profoundest philosopher stands to it in the relation of a schoolboy stumbling through his primer of arithmetic to an adept in the higher mathematics. I will not say the universe. it follows that. The universe conceived as a sphere of earth and water was invested with a coat of air. in the evolution of the cosmos. The nature of the correlating bond is to me an insoluble riddle. It is not clear to me whether these great ancient thinkers held the operations of the Logos to be accompanied by its symbolic manifestation in terms of human consciousness. The gods themselves were products. Reason is there. but the fact remains. The use of the word 'reason' in the sense here defined is no novelty. There is no logical necessity for so doing. but a three-legged stool. and deduction. so the fiery Æther was conceived as the especial seat of the Reason or Logos–the primary source not only of thought but of energy–wherein. could create. but it does not ring the bell of consciousness to say so. consequently. Hence it comes about that among the lower animals generally and among ourselves so far as a large proportion of our lives is concerned. even if raised to the nth power. usually supposed to be adequate. So far as our knowledge goes. induction. As Newton thought space to be the sensorium of the Deity. Moreover. is a source of energy – still less that predication. of which the results are predication. But I think these will be searched in vain to discover that reason. And I should imagine that most sober . and the cosmos pursued the necessary course of its evolution. and deduction.help of this sublime faculty. It is the physical powers which determine the psychical.

this 'interfusing infinite love' may have for its object the whole universe or man alone.thinkers will agree in the agnostic conclusion that this is one of the topics respecting which silence is better than speech. I suppose. The universal flux is ordered by blind causation alone. reasoning in a manner analogous to human ratiocination. But. Agnosticism has one advantage–that of allowing us to take refuge in silence. On the other hand. Creative reason is interfused with infinite love.' Thus the first article of catechism B contains no tenet acknowledged by natural science or by Agnosticism. As reason is absent so also is love. In the present case the object may be the creative power itself– as some theologians have it that the object of creation was the glorification of the creator. when speech drifts towards grotesque anthropomorphism.' If Mr Balfour intends to suggest that before the world began the cosmic process was talked over and settled after the manner described by Milton inParadise Lost. I should make quite as comprehensible a statement. or an infinitely minute portion of mankind. has been actuated by desires of emotions analogous to those which we denominate love. Certainly everything is pre-determined. [3] II. then the use of the word becomes delusive. for my part. And the second is like unto it. the intention is to affirm that the creative power (assumed to have given rise to the universe). A. It seems to me that if I were to say that algebra is interfused with infinite odours. And I really am unable to reconcile it with the attribute of . the demiurge might take pleasure in pain and inflict it to please himself. Whether it can be said to be fore-ordained depends on what is meant by 'fore-ordained. For if the qualification 'infinite' destroys all analogy with the finite. but 'love' of what? Love implies an object of that emotion. If so. however. 'Reason' and 'love' are names for mental phenomena of totally distinct kinds. 'Infinite love'. Moreover there is a grievous hiatus. I have not the least objection to 'fore-ordained' if reason can be shown for preferring it to 'predetermined. I regret to say that I am not able to attach an intelligible signification to A. B. Now this last is a favourite theological view. I can only reply that I feel as unable to adopt as unwilling to discuss the suggestion.

love–unless indeed the qualification 'infinite' means 'infinitely small. has insisted. as here employed. religions.' And that I have no right to assume. sufficiently for his guidance. at any rate. I can only say that neither of these denials would be uttered by a consistent agnostic. jealousy. on the amount of apparently gratuitous pleasure which human beings enjoy as a striking feature of the order of nature. superstitions. except among the grains of human dust on our speck of a planet. instincts. If love. Agnosticism as strongly declines to assert the absence of love as the absence of reason. Among the causes by which the course of organic and social development has been blindly determined are pains. of mental phenomena of an order as much superior to man's as those of man are to those of a mouse. 'seeing causation. But it seems to me that a rational man should really think twice before he attributes human passions to this 'creative' power. who might let his imagination wander freely among such possibilities and remain perfectly true to his principles. If so. so long as he did not mistake his dreams for knowledge. moralities. all are action-producing causes developed not to improve. One agnostic. pleasures. but I have met with nobody who was able or willing to help me to the meaning of the phrase by defining its implied antithesis. I apprehend that by 'moral law' we mean the rule or body of rules by which the conduct of men must be governed if it is to meet with moral approbation. A. [4] III. disgusts. B. eternal. and thinking the thought of the cosmos in its own terms as our minds think the thought of [the] world in terms of our consciousness. I have heard a good deal about 'blind causation' in my time. Moral . immutable. and deceit? All which passions have been attributed to the creative power by both Gentile and Jewish piety. Though it be adequate to infinite goodness and infinite intelligence. appetites. in its governance all spirits find their true freedom and their most perfect realisation. it may be understood even by man. envy. the sentiment of what is noble and intrinsically worthy. before now. From a purely scientific view these all stand on an equality.' I suppose that. why not hate. but simply to perpetuate the species. the sentiment of what is ignoble and intrinsically worthless. Let us turn to B. or abuse other people because they dreamed dreams of another kind or refused to dream at all. There is a moral law. or at least with denying that there can be anywhere an analogue of the 'hegemonikon' of the Stoics. the intention to charge Agnosticism with the denial of the existence anywhere in the endless worlds we know of.

in fact. so long will the rules of conduct remain the same. and in no more self-assertion than is permitted by it. entertains so poor an opinion. then assuredly the moral law is 'immutable and eternal. Moreover. I am sorry to see. or whether both of these conditions come into play. there is considerable verbal agreement between us. of whom Mr Balfour. and that the certainty that the one or the other will follow upon certain actions is the most powerful of all inducements to do them. Whether that association is innate and instinctive (as the pleasure. instincts. it is not to be doubted that so long as human nature and the conditions of human life remain the same. whether it is acquired artificially (as likings and dislikings are acquired in other cases). on the contrary it is they which make the moral law. such law would be a generalisation from actions carried out under their inspiration. It is putting the cart before the horse to say that the moral law makes goodness and intelligence. which I think I have already noticed.approbation is a feeling associated with certain mental conceptions. superstitions. if morality is in its very essence a rule for the guidance of his conduct? Suppose there is an immutable eternal moral law for the angels: what is that to us who are not angels and do not live under heavenly conditions? Surely a farmer. Perhaps I may avoid this difficulty by suggesting that 'goodness' and 'intelligence' of quite finite and conceivable extent would suffice to render a moral law a superfluity. pleasures. certain it is that the sentiment of moral approbation and disapprobation is extremely strong. or refrain from them. not the regulation of those actions. But I have a regretful suspicion that it is only verbal. that. . the truest freedom is to be found in servitude to a moral law. Still more am I at a loss to understand the concluding sentence. or the disgust. If mankind are 'immutable and eternal' and live under immutable conditions. in practical life. How could anything which was not understood by man 'sufficiently for his guidance' be a moral law. No one has expressed this better than one Benedictus Spinoza. associated with certain sensations is innate). that.' Nor can there be a doubt. religions. would be a little unreasonable! The singular fancy for harnessing the horse behind the cart. According to the doctrine of Evolution there was a time when mother earth was the scene of no one of those groups of phenomena called 'pains. pursues Mr Balfour through B. then. For I confess that I fail to comprehend how a 'moral' law can be either 'adequate' or inadequate to 'infinite goodness' and 'infinite intelligence'–always supposing that the adjectives here prefixed to 'goodness' and 'intelligence' have not reduced the values of these terms to mere unknown quantities x and y. disgusts. to my mind. appetites. So far. who laid down rules for his horses and expected his pigs to obey them.' &c.

if I may presume to know what that is. (3) just as Beauty is no more than the name for such varying and accidental attributes of the material or moral worlds as may happen. is a scientific verity. and why science should be accused of affirming that the object of the process marked by these phenomena is 'not to improve but simply to perpetuate the species. I rejoiced to meet at last with a proposition to which (leaving out the 'but. For from such point of view it is an unquestionable truth that the inequality of a signboard and a Cuyp dealing with the same subject is very considerable. That which avails .' which is both superfluous and misleading) I could fully assent. he pointed out that it was fatal to the application of natural selection in this region. but not actually manifest until that epoch. that of dabbing colour on a surface. A. In the possession of reason and in the enjoyment of beauty.' when the progressive improvement is just what variation and natural selection are supposed to account for. I fail to see how the predicate of equality attaches to things so diverse. But any hope of continuing in the same light-hearted vein was effectually dissipated by B (2). Darwin.[These] are every one products of the cosmic process. (1) Reason is but the psychological expression of certain physiological processes in the cerebral hemispheres. (2) It is no more than an expedient among many expedients by which the individual and the race are preserved. when I expounded the very view expressed in B (1) to Mr. for the moment. To say truth. From a 'purely scientific point of view' again. we in some remote way share the nature of that infinite Personality in whom we live and move and have our being. This article of B is so loaded with matter that I have been obliged to take it to pieces and deal with them one at a time. [5] IV. B. That painting is all one process. in the catechism prepared with so much care for my use. an age ago. I am afraid Mr Balfour has hardly given the Origin of Species the attention which that great little book really needs if one is to understand its teachings. to stir our æsthetic feelings. It does not follow that from a purely scientific point of view all paintings should be on an equality. namely. contained in it potentially up to the epoch of the appearance of certain forms of animal life. Such phenomena are no more 'the causes of the course of organic and social development' than the performances of the famous town clock at Berne are the causes of its going. passes my comprehension. When I read B (1). inasmuch as consciousness becomes as it were a by-product.

It is hardly too much to say that the difference between a Peter Bell and the poet who created him is infinite–as great as that between the man who has never been able to get over the pons asinorum and a Laplace or a Helmholtz. If that is so. like every other endowment. D. that they allow themselves to be governed by the minority. as certain propositions in science will be held true by all whose intellects are of normal capacity? The qualities of the best parts of the Iliad or the Divina Commedia appeal to normally constituted men of the present day as strongly as they did to the Greeks of the eighth century B. Thus I must decline to have anything to do with B (2) on scientific grounds. to be just such stirring of all the world's æsthetic feelings. so long will the principles of æsthetics be as 'immutable' as those of morals. or the weird light of a winter sunset athwart the western end of a . There are thousands of people who cannot follow a moderately complex argument. as in those of ethics. B(3) I find equally repugnant to sound æsthetics and to common experience. ugliness would soon be as rampant as vice. or to the Italians of the fourteenth century A. art. And I conceive there is as little justification for taking Beauty. why are there certain works of art. from stature. however varying and accidental. certain natural objects. is distributed to individual men in most unequal manner. or the curve of a wave as the calm sea breaks lazily on a flat beach. The æsthetic faculty. and thousands more to whom one tune is as good as another. so long as human nature endures. and digestion. That upon which the developed æsthetic sense has set the seal of its approbation will never appeal in vain to those who are similarly qualified.C. to passion and intellect. nor. while dulness would be lord of all. And it is as fortunate for mankind in matters of æsthetics. muscular force. and the Sistine Madonna nothing like so pleasant to look at as a gaudy Christmas chromolithograph. As with literature so with every form of art. But I do not know that the infinite diversity of opinions justifies us in saying that Truth is no more than a name for stirring of intellectual faculties. If science. So long as the æsthetic faculties exist in man.in the struggle for existence is the physical process. which will be as certainly accounted beautiful by all in whom the æsthetic faculty is normally developed. will there lack simple and untaught souls to whom the ever-varying aspects of nature–perhaps no more than the shadow of a cloud gliding over a plain. and morality were ruled by universal suffrage. In fact the perfectly rational actions of the lower animals avail them just as much in the struggle for existence as if they were accompanied by conscious ratiocination.

(B) The individual perishes. That which is vivified is not the natural body of the earth. whose orthodoxy was unimpeachable. held the same opinion down to the year 40 at least. and of those few. Pre-exilic Israel was of the same mind in respect of the perishing of the individual. therefore. the resurrection is treated as a purely miraculous event. or characteristic of. the Sadducees. earthy and corruptible. Even if we were free therefore. unless it pleased God to give us his grace. if we were 'free' we were certainly very helpless. Agnosticism. under any theory of the nature of things. So that. and I do not see why we should find any consolation in reflecting that our conduct was determined for us 'in pre-solar æons' by the 'thinking' force of the Divinity. we were powerless to do any good thing and had nothing to expect but everlasting misery. Few can flatter themselves that their conduct has any effect whatever upon its remoter destinies. In the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Certainly natural knowledge gives not the least foundation for the belief that either individual existence or that of the human race is other than limited. our ignorance would make us helpless. heavenly and incorruptible. none can say with reasonable assurance that the effect which they are destined to produce is one which they desire. down to the present time–insisted upon the fact that all things were ordered by God's providence before the world was– that. but a pneumatic body. (A) Every human soul is of infinite value. eternal. I am unable to discover that human vanity and ambition are better satisfied. while high ecclesiastical authority down to our own day has maintained that Christianity does not teach natural immortality. But I know not why this should be accounted a doctrine peculiar to. The 'current teaching' of my boyhood–nowise changed.London street–will be full of beauty. the race itself does not endure. I believe. [6] V. and it may be almost a consolation for us to reflect that our conduct was determined for us by the distribution of unthinking forces in pre-solar æons. free. no human being. or human ignorance better supplemented. . and that if we are impotent to foresee its consequences we were not less impotent to arrange its causes. in the shams of dilettantism and the fads of fashion. and to be condemned to seek beauty without finding it in the varying and accidental combinations of jaded caprice. objects adequate to infinite endeavour. So. And I confess I do not see how an unbiased reader of the Pauline epistles can escape that conclusion. It is the nemesis of over-civilisation to cease to be affected by these things. is so placed as not to have within reach of himself and others.

Again. to whom the past and the future are alike present and on whom all things are dependent. There would have been another Servetus stain on the Protestant escutcheon. Consequently any one who possessed the power of foreseeing the future yesterday or a thousand or a million years ago. b. In fact it is not really in our power to conceive of futurity. and the third the conception of God. c. His rider is sometimes God and sometimes the devil.15 A. [7] Finally. M. nor whisper in the ear of Augustine of Hippo. within reach of the Genevan Reformer. it is surely childish to pretend that any room is left for action independent of his will. as other than a definite series of events a. one of which is the conception of futurity. tomorrow it will be part of the fixed and unalterable past–becomes such in fact even as I write. and c are. but the saddle is never empty. must have seen me doing this exact thing at this very time and place. however remote. Yesterday this was part of the future. . b. if there be an omnipotent and omniscient God.It is really a profound mistake to suppose that Determinism is specially connected with natural science. It did not dictate sundry passages in the Epistle to the Romans. and no other. Luther was assuredly not influenced by it when he expressed it in somewhat brutal fashion. simply so far as we know nothing about it. In thinking of the future we imagine it to be indefinite and uncertain. who holds the world in the hollow of his hand. At this moment I am writing at a certain table in a certain room at 9. by declaring that man is as a beast of burden who goes the way his rider wills. Natural science had no hand in producing the doctrine of pre-destination. if nothing comes into being by chance–future events are the consequences of present events and therefore predetermined by the latter. if the law of causation is absolute–that is to say. Logically it is a tripod standing on three legs. Only we do not know what a. another the conception of universal causation. Yet a little consideration should produce the conviction that the future is as definite and fixed as the past. What did Calvin or Jonathan Edwards know about natural science? Yet who has ever put the case of Determinism better or more unanswerably? In fact I am 'wee to think' of what might have befallen Mr Balfour if he had happened to promulgate the doctrines contained in the last-cited article of the catechism of Demonism.

but that two works of the Divine Artificer. expressly said to be made in his own image. Balfour's object is to furnish a foundation for belief within the pale of Christianity. and all things work together towards a reasonable end. But I think I have succeeded in showing that they contain no single doctrine that Agnosticism recognised as peculiarly its own or that has a closer connection with the premises of natural science than with those of Demonism. if only by that process of sapping the foundations of rival beliefs which it is the habit of the analogical mind to confuse with building its own. There remains a no less interesting question. what I am about to assume to be Christian doctrine will probably be denied to be such by the sects. If I do not greatly err. may be held by somebody. without election? City fathers. From this point of view I am bound to say that the articles of the (A) catechism appear to me to have their foundation not in Christianity but in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. But 'free'? City fathers. Christianity says that the universe is the creation of God's will. a strong stake and plenty of firewood! Man's "infinite endeavour?" "objects within reach of himself"? The creature able even to desire what is good without grace. surely not by its own nature. For anything I have to say to the contrary. as freely as they deny one another's Christianity. It is notoriously difficult to define Christianity. in accordance with purposes altogether past finding out by what we know as reason. But I think that those who will look into the matter carefully will find my justification in history.' the examination of which I have now concluded. the five (B) articles of the 'Naturalistic creed. and that Mr. but I think I have ample justification for the assumption that it means Christian teaching. let the wood be damp and the fire slow. on most trifling temptation fell .'Every human soul of infinite value!' Perhaps the arrogance of the worm's estimate of itself might be excused on the ground of its value as material for infinite suffering. that the universe was at first 'very good'. Some there are who use the term "Christian" as if it applied only to the members of the Church of Rome. others who grant the name only to those who adhere to what they are pleased to call doctrines of the primitive church. Are the five (A) articles a more faithful representation of "current teaching"? I have already lamented the vagueness of this term. The only point upon which all are agreed is that the creed held by James the brother of the Lord and the earliest church of Jerusalem is not Christian.' is a popular statement of the especially Stoical doctrine of the Logos. 'Eternal' by the pleasure of God. [8] 'That the universe is the creation of Reason. Therefore.

agree in the equation. whether the 'infinite love' which is thus compatible with the fore-ordained in pre-solar æons of infinite misery on 999. into a state of endless bliss. renounce volition. as eighteen hundred years ago. And when the tale of God's elect is complete. now.away from goodness. so completely. that in consequence not only they and all their progeny became very bad. but I do not think there is anything about immutable and eternal principles of morality in either Law or Gospel. A mere fraction. for no merit or good deed of their own. when we know that the natural man is corrupt.999 out of every 1. though happily more or less ignored in practice. whether the nature of things as thus displayed is 'rational' in any other sense. as ever since Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. body and soul? [9] To believe against the dictates of the carnal reason.' Again. has a resemblance to what we usually call 'love. the offspring of selfrighteousness. and sink into a quietistic machine driven by the Spirit–these are the counsels of perfection accepted in theory. to refuse to listen to the impulses of affection tainted by sin. on the other hand. If it were not. that he was officially recognised as the Prince of this world.000. the whole creation travaileth and groaneth in the bonds of sin and misery. beyond taking advantage of the means of grace (inaccessible to the vast majority) offered them by the Creator who determined their nature and faculties. all but a mere fraction of the human race have lived sorrowfully and sinfully. That this state of things continues: now. not one in a million certainly. Judaism. by a miraculous exertion of the Divine power. to withdraw from all human interests. and was given over to the enemy of God.' is. is the slightest confidence to be placed in them. and at death have passed to endless torment. . the devil. have passed or will pass. but the world was cursed for their sake. and in the assertion that it is our duty to do whatever God commands us to do without reference to the ethical prepossessions of our sinful nature. I may be wrong. But.000 of human beings. I imagine. and principles. the moral = the declared will of God. How. the universe will be destroyed as the timbers of a booth in which strolling actors have played out the play are knocked to pieces and used for firewood. the end would be different. I think open to discussion. of course the universe is rationally disposed to bring about that end. If this is the end to which things work together. But perhaps 'love. the third article of catechism A breathes the purest spirit of pre-christian heathenism.' in Mr Balfour's language. primitive Christianity. by the great majority of Christians. Nazarenism. has as special a sense as 'phenomenon' and 'naturalism. indeed.

It is the creed of the heroes of the lliad and of the Norsemen of the Sagas. The second sentence of article 5 is one to which I heartily subscribe. Christian teaching– has no exclusive claim to it–nay. all obligation of honour and duty. on the other hand. consciously or unconsciously.' Indeed. the axiomatic foundation of all worthy human life. They have recognised in themselves and others only one object–the salvation of their souls to attain that they have been as ready to trample down every consideration of patriotism or social welfare. and. the early Councils would not have had so much trouble about the union of the two natures in Christ. it is doubtful whether it has any claim at all. The nobler men who have professed the Christian faith have always acted upon this expression of the best that is in human nature. in my judgment. it has been. and is. if they had known that natural man shares. . But. really and truly. But those who have most zealously professed and called themselves Christians–those who have assumed airs of superior sanctity in all ages–have not done so.The trail of Hellenism is even more evident in the fourth article. The mad lust of self-preservation blinds the undisciplined sailors to all pity for the weak. current teaching–that is. on whom not even the friend of God could look face to face and live. 'the nature of the Divine Personality. Mr Balfour's conception of an 'infinite Personality' is Hellenic– was imported into Christianity with the other Hellenic philosophumena. is undeserving of the higher title of Man.' The God whose nature we can be said to share is not the Jehovah of old Israel. in any way. It is from a Stoical pantheist that Paul the apostle borrowed 'in whom we live and move and have our being. but. he who refuses to do so may be a philosopher.