New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-20
Mr.. HUXLEY.
HIS NEW vOLUMEs-HIS CONTROVERSIES
HIS AGNOSIICISM-HIS PLACE AS A
WRITER
III.

Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions. ny
THONGS II Huxley F r. s. Macmillan Co.. London
London, July 4.
It is not to be inferred from Mr.. Huxley's adj
miration for the Bible that he holds orthodox
views Of that book; should any two men hap
pen to agree as to what views are orthodox. The
expressions quoted or referred to at the end Of
my last letter do not imply an acquiescence on
his part In any Of the current notions Of in
spiration; nor could Mr. Huxley's opinion be
made to harmonize I fear, with that Of any
critic whom any Christian sect or church, 40
a whole, would regard sound. Nobody for
whom his name has an interest would be likely
TO make the mistake of supposing him conformist
to any accepted creed. He has been laying siege
to oreeds all his life long, and has been 20
much abused for it that his attitude Ia In no
danger Of being misunderstood lie calls himself
agnosio. Dr. WAGE, one Of the least fortunats
champions Of what he thinks Christianity, pre-
fers to call him an inidel. Very curious is Mr..
Huxey's cool consideration of the question
whether he ought TO be called an inHdel a
DR.. WAGE thinks, or. as he himself thinks, an
agnostic.
II do not care much what am called by
other people, and If I had at my side all those
who, since the Christian Era have been called
company II these are my ancestors. / prefer,
with the, old Frank, to be with them wherever
they are"
1t is just thirty years. he observes elsewhere,
since ecclesiastical thunderbcts began to fly
about his ears. II have had the Lion and tho
Pear to deal with, and it is long since got
quite used to the threatenings Of Episcopal
Goliaths, whose crozers were like unto
a weavers beam" This note recurs pretty often
in she course Of these essays. :" have not found
reason 70 care much for hard names in the course
OF the last thirty years, and / am too old to
develop new sensitiveness" In the beginning,
IL was perhaps disagreeable In his youth, he
tells u.s. II was serious matter for man to
be suspected Of doubling the literal truth Of
the Diluvial or any other Pentateuchal history.
There may still be communities where it is. or
where any form or degree Of honest indepen-
dence in matters Of faith is resented. It is. and
it ought to be-" says Dr. WAGE, in his dogmatic
way, AN unpleasant thing for a man to have
TO say plainly that he does not believe IN Jesus
Christi Mr.. IIuxley's reply is Characteristic.
Il do not sec why it should be unpleasant
that it ought TO be- unpleasant for any man to
say anything which be sincerely, and after due
deilboration, believes, is, e my mind, propo-
sitipn Of The most profoundly immoral character
much greater than Dr. Waco has tried his
hand at fastening unpleasant mputations on
Mr.. Iuxley-none other than Mr. Gladstone.
There is n great deal Of Mr. Gladstone in this
volume whose excursions into the fields Of
Biblical criticism are, II not always happy,
numerous. The methods which Mr.. Gladstone
employs In politics he also employs in theolog-
ical and scientific controversy. 1t ia perhaps
well that he should. do II they good for
one, they ought 10 be good for the other. and
If. when employed with reference to matters
where accurate use Of language and an exact
knowledge OF facts imperative, they are
sccn 10 DC vicious, suspicion to their value
for any purpose may possibly arise, even in the
minds of his idolaters I strongly recommend
this volume to the idolaters. They may see
therein, il they will. what kind Of figure their
idol presents in his encounter with opponent
who is, beyond dispute one OF the most eminent
men Of science Of the day. They cannot sup
pose Mr.. Huxley TO be swayed by political
feelings: still less by personal antipathies
For I am afraid it must be said that his feeling
toward Mr.. Gladstone comes near to being @
feeling Of good-humored contemptuousness, mingled
at times with some OF the indignation which a
mau who thinks straight lines may have for
one who thinks crookedly; and who will not
take the trouble 10 master his subject.
When the contest ragged over the Penta-
teuchal myth OF the creation. Mr. Gladstones
manifest want OF acquaintance with the facts
and principles involved in the discussion. no less
than with the best literature on his own side Of
the discussion gave me the uncomfortable feel
The sun Of science, at my back, was in his
eyes. But. ca the present occasion, we are hap
PLY on an equality"
The present occasion was the now celebrated
discussion on the miracle of the Gadarene
swine. and it was in the coursc Of this discus
sion that Mr. Gladstone undertook TO make IL
unpleasant for Mr. Huxley. as l snid above.
Mr TT,xl a,-- ne half in fha
so-called miracle by which certain devils were
allowed by Jesus, at their own request, TO enter
into herd of swine. which thereupon rushed
violently into the Lake OF Gennesarct and were
drowned. TO the great loss and damage Of the
innocent Gadarcnc pig owners" whom nobody
either in performing the miracle" or in 1escrb-
ing il, seems 10 have considered at all. Mr. Iux-
ley thinks they ought 10 have been considered:
Everything that know of law and justice
convinccs me that the wanton destruction Of other
peoples property is mlsdemcanor OF evil eX-
ample
Mr.. Gladstone saw his chance, and took IL.
lie went for Mr. Huxley exactly as he goes for
Mr.. Bafour. or for anybody else who ventured 10
differ from him In the House OF Commons He
roundy asserts that Mr.. Huxley has undertaken
to try the character of our Lord and accuses
him of alleging that Jesus was no better than
q law-brcakcr and on evildoer.' Mr.. Huxley's
answer il extremely simple. lie expressly said In
first dealing with the matter that he did not be-
licvc that Jesus had done anything Of the kind
he was described doing. and that the
story In the Gospels was untrue. I will quote
Mr.. Gadstone's rejonder to this explicit state
ment of plain fact: Il must, however in pass
ing make the confession that did not state
with accuracy as I ought to have done. the pre-
csc form Of Mr.. Huxlcys accusation. ! treated
it as an imputatiou on the action Of our Lord;
he replies that it is only an imputation on the
narrative Of the three evangcsts respecting Him.
The difference, from his point OF view, is probably
material. and therefore regret that overlooked
it,