of modern science.  Positively the principle may be expressed:  In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration.  And negatively:  In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.  That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science.  That which is unproven to-day may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow.  The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties.  And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.  Agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles are, I am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated.  But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express his readiness to agree with you if he found them satisfactory.  The apostolic injunction to “suffer fools gladly” should be the rule of life of a true agnostic.  I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be.

However, as I began by stating, I speak only for myself; and I do not dream of anathematizing and excommunicating Mr. Laing.  But, when I consider his creed and compare it with the Athanasian, I think I have on the whole a clearer conception of the meaning of the latter.  “Polarity,” in Article VIII, for example, is a word about which I heard a good deal in my youth, when “Naturphilosophie” was in fashion, and greatly did I suffer from it.  For many years past, whenever I have met with “polarity” anywhere but in a discussion of some purely physical topic, such as magnetism, I have shut the book.  Mr. Laing must excuse me if the force of habit was too much for me when I read his eighth article.

And now, what is to be said to Mr. Harrison’s remarkable deliverance “On the future of agnosticism “?[63] I would that it were not my business to say anything, for I am afraid I can say nothing which shall manifest my great personal respect for this able writer, and for the zeal and energy with which he ever and anon galvanises the weakly frame of Positivism until it looks, more than ever, like John Bunyan’s Pope and Pagan rolled into one.  There is a story often repeated, and I am afraid none the less mythical on that account, of a valiant and loud-voiced corporal in command of two full privates who, falling in with a regiment of the enemy in the dark, orders it to surrender under pain of instant annihilation by his force; and the enemy surrenders accordingly.  I am always reminded of this tale when I read the positivist commands to the forces of Christianity and of Science; only the enemy show no more signs of intending to obey now than they have done any time these forty years.