The sun., 1894-03-11

The preface begins with some lines written
by d. +. Strauss. the author oi the Life OF
Jesus. After rsmarking that close upon forty
years he had been writing with one purpose.
Strauss said: Il have wished and still wish
to disturb no mans pence OF mind. no man 9
beliefs; but only to point out to those in whom
they are already shattered the direction in
which. in my conviction. nrmer ground lies"
The aim OF this preface 10 to convince the read
ers that Prof. Huxley also In writing tho
essays contained in this volume. was prompt
ed by motives different from those which have
been ascribed to him. He denies. for instance
that he has gone out OF his way to attack the
Bible. and he denies as stesd!astly that hatred
OF Christianity Is u feeling with which he has
any acquaintance. The simple fact is. he tells
us, that he had set out on a journey with no
other purpose than that OF exploring a certain
province Of natural knowledge. Il strayed no
hairs breadth from tho course which IL was my
right and my duty to pursue; and yet found
that. whatever route took. before long
came to q tall and Notwithstanding fence.
Confident as might be in the existence OF an
ancient and indefeasible right OF way. before
me stood the thorny barrier. with its commin-
atory notice board. No Thoroughfare By
order. Mosea' There seemed no way over:
nor did tho prospect OF creeping round. as
saw some do. attract me. True. there was no
longer any cause to fear the spring guns and
mantraps set by former lords Of the manor;
but one is apt to get very dirty going all
fours. The only alternatives were either to
give up my journey. which was not minded
TO do. or to break the fence down and 90
through it" Although. as he protests. by na-
ture alaw-abiding person. willing to submit
to all legitimate authority. Prof. Huxley also
had and has q conviction that reasonable as
an nt la0i m ahnnlH d. nm h
mission. Accordingly. he made 1t his business
to look up the manorial title deeds. or In other
words. to scrutinize the credentials produced
to Justify the claim OF Moses to ex erclss a con-
troll over the operation OF the reason fac ulty
In tho search after truth thirty centuries after
his age. His conclusions were sot forth in an
essay published In 1860 and no now ventures
to assert that scientific criticism OF the Old
Testament has borne out every word Of the
estimate OF the authority OF the ecclesiastical
Moses" put forward at that time. Thirty years
ago. criticism OF the Pentateuch was held By
most respectable people TO be deadly sin; how
II has sunk to the rank Of a mere peccadillo:
at least II 1t stops short OF the history OF Abra
ham. Destroy the foundations OF most forms
OF dogmatio Christianity contained In the sec
ond chapter OF Genesis II you will the new
ecelesiastieism undertakes to undsrpin the
superstructure and make II. at any rate to the
ere. as firm as ever" The same toleration,
however. 10 not yet extended to one who
applies the same eAnons OF criticism to the
opening chapters OF Matthew or OF Luke. 1t
Is the refusal OF Prof. Huxley to believe the
miracles recorded IN the New Testament or to
accept the gospel demonoloRy which now gives
offence to his Christian fellow eountrymen.
But here. again. he contends that he did not go
out OF his way to attack; he simply responded
to u challenge. He was challenged to
question the authority for the theory Of the
spiritual world and the practical conssQuences
deducibls from human relations to It con.
tained in the New Testament There is. OF
course. no doubt that the belief 10 a demonic
world is inculeated throu hout the Cos spells and
the rest Of the New Testament books IL per-
vades the whole patristie literature: it eoIors
the theory and the practice OF every Christian
Church down to modern times Especially is |
this conception fundamental for the authors
OF the Gospels. Without the belief that the
present world. and particularly that part Of It
which ts constituted BY human society. has
been given over since the Fall to the influence
OF malignant and wicked spiritual beings, gov.
erned and directed by a supreme devil. the
moral antithesis and enemy Of the supreme
God their theory Of salvation by the Messiah
falls TO pieces. We read In the Gospel OF St
John. TO this end was the Son OF God mani
rested that ne might destroy the works |
Of the devil" 1t follows that he who !
refuses to accept the demonology OF the Cos.
Dels rejects the revelation Of a spiritual world
m ads In them. as much as il he denied the ex-
istence OF such a person as Jesus Of Nazareth. |
and deserves as much as AnJ one can 10 to DO |
sAr-maTEed 'infdel.' Now ProL Huxley has !
thought 1t desirable on his own account TO |
make perfectly clear the fact that. in his own |
judgment the demonology OF primitive Chris |
tiaHisy Is totally devoid u foundation: aud |
lhHt no man who IL guided By the rules Of in |
ssstlgatioR which are found 10 lead 10 the !