THE AGNOSTIC AT CHURCH.

II.

Mr. Louis Greg is of opinion that it is incumbent upon all Agnostics who reside in country neighbourhoods or villages to attend church regularly-except upon those days when the so-called Athanasian Creed is ordered to be read-but to refrain from repeating the ordinary creeds, and from joining in Communion.

This Agnostic rôle is upheld on the ground of the good of others, and the advancement of humanity,' and urged as a clear duty if one would be true to his creed.

I am not aware that the positive precepts of a formulated creed have ever been published by an Agnostic, but if so, I am convinced that truthfulness must be enunciated in that creed; and by truthfulness an Agnostic means conformity of outward personal conduct to his inward state of thought and feeling.

Far from supposing that the advancement of humanity requires deception, and the playing of a part which is not the spontaneous and logical outcome of his own intellectual standpoint, the Agnostic looks upon such action as pernicious and baneful to humanity, and believes that were all men scrupulously true to themselves in this transition age, progress would be infinitely more steady and rapid.

It is a fallacy to place before us the interrogative proposition, 'does the teaching in Church do good or harm?' and infer that we are shut up to the logical necessity of affirming one and denying the other. The answer is, that the teaching in Church does some good and some harm, and the proposition has no bearing whatever upon the moral question of an Agnostic's duty.

If we come to the relative proportion of good and harm done in Church, and make attempts to compute the two and strike a balance, we enter upon a Herculean labour, and one of no practical value in the guidance of personal conduct.

The Church is a thoroughly useful, regulative force, just so long as its authority is not questioned, and the doctrines taught in it are not seen to conflict with fact; but, after that point, its general influence is vacillating and unsteady, and, from the intellectual point of view, harmful, because it brings confusion into the public mind.

The Agnostic recognises that science is slowly but surely undermining the theological explanation of the Universe, and step by step verifying the Evolution theory.

Comparatively few individuals can scan the entire field of action of this enormous factor of change, and understand something of the magnitude and bulk of the effects it is destined to produce on human life; but even now waves and eddies from the main stream are everywhere thrown up upon the surface of society, and facts of science are seen to clash with the notions previously established, and cause in individual minds bewilderment and doubt, and often pain.

To turn to the Church for enlightenment in this dilemma is vain. It has no clear and certain teaching to offer regarding the true place of science in its economy of things, and the laity must themselves carve or shape out a new philosophy of life which will harmonise with knowledge and give consistency to conduct.

Meanwhile the danger of the present day arises from the fact that morality, or the conduct of life, has hitherto been attached to, and only taught upon the basis of authority-viz. the authority of a Church or a book, both of which are now almost universally admitted to be not infallible. And when authority gives way, those natures that are weak are apt to prove morally unstable.

All Agnostics see this danger to mankind equally with Mr. Louis Greg, but few, I imagine, could possibly approve his retrograde, hypocritical, and, therefore, immoral method of meeting it.

Example is often better than good precept, and at all times much better than confused and wavering precepts. In these transition times, what we want is the example of steadfast, noble, upright, selfregulated lives standing independently of the support of superstition. Agnostics outside the Church, who are truthful, courageous, just, tolerant, and filled with the enthusiasm of humanity, will accomplish an admirable work in advancing human progress. They will serve as beacons to benighted mariners who, driven from old moorings by the simple uncontrollable force of the onward march of time, do not themselves clearly see the path of truth and progress, and are apt in the maze and sad bewilderment of intellectual doubt to make shipwreck of moral life, and, losing childish faith, lose all.

The outward forces that have kept men upright are failing us, and it is to inward self-regulating forces we must look.

To sustain the tottering props of outward forms is not the rôle of calm and strong Agnostics, but rather to develop and inspire the inward regulative powers, and show the world that laws of noble life and human well-being are quite distinct from dogmas handed down by men who, wise and rational in their day, were wholly ignorant of much that now stands revealed to us.

But let us contemplate the picture Mr. Louis Greg places before us: an Agnostic going regularly to Church, but never to Com

munion, and shutting up his prayer-book or his lips, and resting mute whilst creeds are read or reverently intoned. If fellowworshippers observe-and who does not in this inquiring age ?-what do they make of this strange feature of a Christian service?-a worshipper who stumbles at and clearly will not stand upon the very foundation stones on which the worship is built up!

If such observers are incapable, as Mr. Greg assumes, of dealing with abstract ideas, at least this concrete and very tangible reality is likely to awaken in them dreadful doubts and dire perplexity, and if they simply ask an honest question, 'Are you Christian or are you not?' what must the Agnostic do or say? Is he to answer both yea and nay, and hold that the world is all the better for his doing so? or is he to speak out when brought to book and never to perceive that the questionable good done to the indifferent or lazy man, who has been brought to church by his example, is cancelled by the doubt he has awakened in the breast of his more orthodox fellow-worshipper? Truly he is in a strait betwixt two, and the good old precept which bids a man be honest and choose at all times the straightforward course has claims to be considered the better policy as well as what it surely is the higher morality.

But it is not simply as example to lazy villagers that Mr. Greg would urge upon Agnostics to attend church services. He argues further, that without this concession to conformity they will lose influence in a neighbourhood and be thrust out from fellowship in local efforts for the general well-being, moral, intellectual and physical.

The parson, he thinks, will refuse to work cordially with them, or even to recognise them as animated by any spirit of earnestness and truth.

This seems a remarkable view of the English clergy, and if Agnostics have but small reason to be proud of the measure Mr. Greg has taken of their mental and moral capacity, still less have parsons cause for self-gratulation.

A parson is supposed to be grossly intolerant and quite incapable of even comprehending the Agnostic's intellectual standpoint and position! And this weakness is brought forward as a reason for concession and a claim on the Agnostic to outwardly conform and bolster up the parson's influence in his parish!

I feel convinced the clergy will disavow the claim, and feel it something of a calumny; for are they not educated gentlemen, as able and as willing as Mr. Greg or any other layman to understand, and to respect, the conscientious scruples of those who differ in opinion from themselves?

Mr. Greg sums up his arguments in four propositions :—

1st. He postulates that the teaching of the Church does more good than harm, directly and indirectly.

2nd. He asserts that the absence from Church of our supposititious Agnostic will act as an example to induce others to stay away, not from conviction but from laziness or worse motives.

3rd. That it will tend to prevent that cordial co-operation with the parson, which in a small district is so important for the welfare of the neighbourhood.

And 4th. That it will not only neutralise in great measure his own power for good, but also diminish that of the parson.

To his 1st proposition I reply: The Agnostic declines to compute the relative proportion of good and harm done by the Church; and considers the question irrelevant.

To the 2nd I admit that the example may lead others to stay away, but I assert-if that be an evil-that much graver and greater evils lie on the other side. His own moral nature suffers by a position that is deceptive and compromising, and he confuses the minds of others by inconsistent action.

The 3rd proposition I entirely discredit. No earnest and devoted parson will refuse to co-operate with a willing Agnostic in efforts for the intellectual, moral, and physical well-being of his flock.

And, the first half of the 4th proposition I not only deny, but I affirm its opposite! An Agnostic's power for good would be neutralised by the course Mr. Greg advises, whilst if he lives consistently and openly, according to his own belief, he acts for the good of others and for the advancement of humanity.'

The second half of the 4th proposition, I leave to parsons themselves. It seems to me that very few indeed would ever wish to prop their personal influence in the parish upon the doubtful stay afforded by an Agnostic's half-hearted worship in the Church.

Therefore, I say, let all Agnostics be true men outside the Church, and not sham Christians within it.

J. H. CLAPPERTON.