Hence, the only legitimate attitude of pure reason is pure agnosticism.  No one can deny this.  But, it will be said, there is this vast difference between our intuitive knowledge of all other first principles and that alleged of the ‘first of all first principles,’ viz. that the latter is confessedly not known to all men.  Now, assuredly, there is here a vast difference.  But so there ought to be, if we are here in a state of probation, as before explained.  And that we are in such a state is not only the hypothesis of religion, but the sole rational explanation as well as moral justification of our existence as rational beings and moral agents[58].

It is not necessarily true, as J.S.  Mill and all other agnostics think, that even if internal intuition be of divine origin, the illumination thus furnished can only be of evidential value to the individual subject thereof.  On the contrary, it may be studied objectively, even if not experienced subjectively; and ought to be so studied by a pure agnostic desirous of light from any quarter.  Even if he does not know it as a noumenon he can investigate it as a phenomenon.  And, supposing it to be of divine origin, as its subjects believe and he has no reason to doubt, he may gain much evidence against its being a mere psychological illusion from identical reports of it in all ages.  Thus, if any large section of the race were to see flames issuing from magnets, there would be no doubt as to their objective reality.

The testimony given by Socrates to the occurrence in himself of an internal Voice, having all the definiteness of an auditory hallucination, has given rise to much speculation by subsequent philosophers.

Many explanations are suggested, but if we remember the critical nature of Socrates’ own mind, the literal nature of his mode of teaching, and the high authority which attaches to Plato’s opinion on the subject, the probability seems to incline towards the ‘Demon’ having been, in Socrates’ own consciousness, an actual auditory sensation.  Be this however as it may, I suppose there is no question that we may adopt this view of the matter at least to the extent of classifying Socrates with Luther, Pascal, &c., not to mention all the line of Hebrew and other prophets, who agree in speaking of a Divine Voice.

If so, the further question arises whether we are to classify all these with lunatics in whom the phenomena of auditory hallucination are habitual.

Without doubt this hypothesis is most in accordance with the temper of our age, partly because it obeys the law of parsimony, and partly because it [negatives] a priori the possibility of revelation.

But if we look at the matter from the point of view of pure agnosticism, we are not entitled to adopt so rough and ready an interpretation.