But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this article of belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant.  His difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated.  He may prefer to call himself an Agnostic; but his real name is an older one—­he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever.  The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance.  Perhaps it is right that it should.  It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.[52]

So much of Dr. Wace’s address either explicitly or implicitly concerns me, that I take upon myself to deal with it; but, in so doing, it must be understood that I speak for myself alone.  I am not aware that there is any sect of Agnostics; and if there be, I am not its acknowledged prophet or pope.  I desire to leave to the Comtists the entire monopoly of the manufacture of imitation ecclesiasticism.

Let us calmly and dispassionately consider Dr. Wace’s appreciation of agnosticism.  The agnostic, according to his view, is a person who says he has no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of the future; by which somewhat loose phraseology Dr. Wace presumably means the theological unseen world and future.  I cannot think this description happy, either in form or substance, but for the present it may pass.  Dr. Wace continues, that it is not “his difference from Christians.”  Are there then any Christians who say that they know nothing about the unseen world and the future?  I was ignorant of the fact, but T am ready to accept it on the authority of a professional theologian, and I proceed to Dr. Wace’s next proposition.

The real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic “does not believe the authority” on which “these things” are stated, which authority is Jesus Christ.  He is simply an old-fashioned “infidel” who is afraid to own to his right name.  As “Presbyter is priest writ large,” so is “agnostic” the mere Greek equivalent for the Latin “infidel.”  There is an attractive simplicity about this solution of the problem; and it has that advantage of being somewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which is so dear to the less refined sort of controversialist.  The agnostic says, “I cannot find good evidence that so and so is true.”  “Ah,” says his adversary, seizing his opportunity, “then you declare that Jesus Christ was untruthful, for he said so and so;” a very telling method of rousing prejudice.  But suppose that the value of the evidence as to what Jesus may have said and done, and as to the exact nature and scope of his authority, is just that which the agnostic finds it most difficult to determine.  If I venture to doubt that the Duke of Wellington gave the command “Up, Guards, and at ’em!” at Waterloo, I do not think that even Dr. Wace would accuse me of disbelieving the Duke.  Yet it would be just as reasonable to do this as to accuse any one of denying what Jesus said, before the preliminary question as to what he did say is settled.