As regards the first point, never was any one more arrogant in his claims for pure reason than I was—­more arrogant in spirit though not in letter, this being due to contact with science; without ever considering how opposed to reason itself is the unexpressed assumption of my earlier argument as to God Himself, as if His existence were a merely physical problem to be solved by man’s reason alone, without reference to his other and higher faculties[37].

The second point is of still more importance, because so seldom, if ever, recognized.

At the time of writing the Candid Examination I perceived clearly how the whole question of Theism from the side of reason turned on the question as to the nature of natural causation.  My theory of natural causation obeyed the Law of Parsimony, resolving all into Being as such; but, on the other hand, it erred in not considering whether ’higher causes’ are not ‘necessary’ to account for spiritual facts—­i.e. whether the ultimate Being must not be at least as high as the intellectual and spiritual nature of man, i.e. higher than anything merely physical or mechanical.  The supposition that it must does not violate the Law of Parsimony.

Pure agnostics ought to investigate the religious consciousness of Christians as a phenomenon which may possibly be what Christians themselves believe it to be, i.e. of Divine origin.  And this may be done without entering into any question as to the objective validity of Christian dogmas.  The metaphysics of Christianity may be all false in fact, and yet the spirit of Christianity may be true in substance—­i.e. it may be the highest ‘good gift from above’ as yet given to man.

My present object, then, like that of Socrates, is not to impart any philosophical system, or even positive knowledge, but a frame of mind, what I may term, pure agnosticism, as distinguished from what is commonly so called.

FOOTNOTES: 

[34] The first edition, which was published in 1878, was rapidly exhausted, but, as my object in publishing was solely that of soliciting criticism for my own benefit, I arranged with the publishers not to issue any further edition.  The work has therefore been out of print for many years.

[This ‘arrangement’ was however not actually made, or at least was unknown to the present publishing firm of Kegan Paul, Trench, Truebner & Co.  Thus a new edition of the book was published in 1892, to the author’s surprise.—­ED.]

[35] [Or rather it was intended that it should appear under the pseudonym of ’Metaphysicus.’—­ED.]

[36] [Words in square brackets have been added by me.  But I have not introduced the brackets when I have simply inserted single unimportant words obviously necessary for the sense.—­ED.]

[37] [See p. 29, quotation from Preface of ‘Physicus.’  The state of mind expressed in the above Note is a return to the earlier frame of mind of the Burney Essay, e.g. p. 20.  That essay was full of the thought that Christian evidences are very manifold and largely ’extra-scientific.’—­ED.]