WATTS’S LITERARY GUIDE.

[November 15, 1890.

than the idea that Christianity should have received a certain colouring and form, not only from the Jewish, but from all the ancient religions which could, through various channels, have been communicated to the original framers of the Gospels. So far from degrading Christianity, suth a theory of religious evolution adds a glory to it, by making it the preserver, and carrier, and propagator of high thoughts and moral impulses which had moved human hearts since the dawn of civilisation. But many jealous Christians have resented the suggestion. And not only have they resented it, but they have sought to snatch a new honour for their creed by arguing that the religion of Krishna has actually borrowed characteristics from the religion of Christ. This attempt Mr. Robertson resolutely resists and defeats, by proving that the Krishna worship arose and flourished, and possessed the characteristics in dispute, before the Nazarene Saviour was born. Among these parallel features we may name the virgin mother, the humble birth-place, the massacre of innocents by a royal tyrant, the descent into Hell, etc.

In support of his thesis Mr. Robertson displays an immense and painstaking zeal. He has ransacked the literature of Indian history and theology, instituted minute comparisons between the conclusions laid down by eminent scholars, and has neglected no available source of information, in order to throw light upon the question of the preChristian rise and development of Krishnaism. We are almost inclined to say, if Mr. Robertson will permit a friendly protest, that he has expended over-much labour in proving his points ; or, rather, that he has placed before the reader a too abundant mass of the materials upon which he builds his argument. His pages are so crowded with conscientious references and citations that the uninitiated mind is apt to get a little bewildered amid an assemblage o f Sanscrit phrases, classical allusions, and conflicting theories of orientalist professors. We the more readily draw attention to this defect of method because we highly appreciate Mr. Robertson’s energy of research, his candour and courage of exposition, and his admirable combination o f learning and common sense. We trust he will continue these useful studies in the fields of archaeology and comparative religion, or, as he more accurately calls it, comparative hierology. Meanwhile we commend Mr. Robertson’s essay to the attention of the ever-increasing circle of readers who take an interest in all that concerns the origin and mental architecture of the Christianity which is now yielding under the influence of a nobler and more rational religion.

M ir a b e a u B row n .

R A N D O M N O T E S .

L i k e the mists that hang over a swamp, or the snows that linger in a valley where the light o f the sun rarely penetrates, so still hovers over the minds of the multitude that mental jog which obscures the important distinction between knowin g a thing and knowing about a thing. Nearly all the disputations we hear respecting the possibility o f knowing God arise from the confusion of these two ideas, which ought never to be confounded, and cannot be confounded without leading to false inferences.

* *

*

The Bishop of Carlisle notes this distinction and applies ■ it admirably, although, like most Theistic writers, he quite misrepresents the position of the Agnostic. He says :*

* “ Walks in the Regions o f Science and Faith,” p. 202. By Harvey Goodwin, Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

“ Some would have us substitute for the knowledge of God— in other words, for divine science— what they call Agnosticism; ............but the fallacy o f the proposed substitution is seen when we consider how easy it is— nay, how necessary it is— for all thinking persons to grant that, in a certain sense, God must be unknowable, and how foolish it is to regard this admission as at all equivalent to this other assertion, that nothing can be known about God.” Now, is it not amazing that the Bishop, in saying this, should imagine he was saying something in opposition to Agnosticism ? All those Agnostics who regard God as in his nature and essence unknowable do, I believe, regard the entire process of cosmic evolution as a manifestation of that Bower which, for lack of a better name, we mostly agree in calling God. We thus profess to know much about God, and see an inexhaustible field of research in which we may learn more; but that is a very different thing, as the Bishop himself acknowledges, from professing to know God.

* * *

The incongruity between these two ways of expressing ourselves becomes clearer i f we take a concrete case more within the range of human experience. Thus I have been familiar with the name of Disraeli from my boyhood. I have read his books, and many of his speeches. I have a fair idea o f his character, his opinions, and his sentiments. I have had abundant opportunities o f hearing what other people said and thought about him. I have read a minute description of his last days, his death-bed sayings, and have visited his grave at Hughenden. But I have never seen his face or heard his voice, nor, for aught I know, have ever been within a mile o f his bodily presence. Now, what would be thought o f me by any man of common sense if he heard me say that I knew Mr. Disraeli very well, and had been acquainted with him from my childhood ? And this merely in virtue o f what I knew or had heard about him ? I should be ridiculed and badgered without mercy. Such is the difference which the common sense o f mankind assigns to the ideas o f knowing and knowing about a person.

*■ * *

Take another case. I was acquainted with the name and works of George Eliot at a very early date. I enjoyed the reading of the works immensely, and formed a high estimate o f the genius and religious principles o f the author. But, although I thus knew so much about the author, I did not for years know so much as whether the author was a man or a woman. Now, I put it again to anyone of common sense whether it would not have been a most blameworthy abuse of language if I had gone about among my friends with the pretence that I had been acquainted with the author of “ Silas Marner ” for years, when I did not even know her sex or proper name. As the writer of several works of great value, and under the nom de plum e of George Eliot, she was known to thousands; but she herself, as Marian Eaans, was known to none beyond a select few. And yet there are some who think and say they know God merely because they have studied the ways in which he manifests himself.

R. B i t h e l l , B.Sc., Ph.D.

G . I I . I E I V E S A N D T H E “ F O R T N I G H T L Y . "

14,3, Trinity Road, Upper Tooting, October l8th, 1890. I f e e l considerable regret at the tone o f Mr. McCrie’s correction.” He made an absolute mis-statement, for hich he was asked to furnish some evidence. He supplies 0 evidence, and simply admits that his statement was somewhat too s t r o n g n o r does he express the slightest ;gret for having made, it— indeed, so far from expressing