to human intelligence. (_An
Agnostic's Apology_; p. 1).

And he then goes on to assert that the subject matter of theology lies
beyond these limits.

Now putting on one side this perversion of the meaning of Atheism, was
it really worth while to coin a new word to affirm what no one denies?
Theists do not deny the limitations of knowledge, on the contrary, they
are always affirming it. Neither do all theists deny that "God" is
unknowable. That has been affirmed by them over and over again. What
they have claimed is that "God" is apprehended rather than known, and
they affirm his existence on much the same grounds that others assert
the real existence of an external world. Professor Flint's comments on
Stephen's performance are quite to the point, and the more noteworthy as
coming from a clergyman. He says:

The word Atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means
one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor
less. It implies neither blame nor approval, neither desert of
punishment nor of reward. If a purely dogmatic Atheism be a rare
phase of opinion critical Atheism is a very common one, and there
is also a form of Atheism which is professedly sceptical or
agnostic, but often in reality dogmatic or gnostic. (_Agnosticism_;
p. 69).

The more carefully one examines the reasons given for the preference for
the word Agnosticism, the clearer it becomes that the real motive is not
the wish to obtain mental clarity, but the desire to avoid association
with a term that carries, religiously, disagreeable associations. The
care taken by so many who call themselves Agnostics to explain to the
religious world that they are not atheists, is almost enough to prove
this. Indeed, the position is well summed up by Mr. John M. Robertson:--

The best argument for the use of the name Agnostic is simply that
the word Atheist has been so long covered with all manner of
ignorant calumny that it is expedient to use a new term which
though in some respects faulty, has a fair start, and will in time
have a recognised meaning. The case, so stated, is reasonable; but
there is the _per contra_ that whatever the motive with which the
name is used, it is now tacked to half a dozen conflicting forms of
doctrine, varying loosely between Theism and Pantheism. The name of
Atheist escapes that drawback. Its unpopularity has