it is a duty to be happy. Moreover, the way to be happy was to work.
Work, I might almost say, was his religion. 'Be strong and of a good
courage' was the ultimate moral which he drew from doubts and
difficulties. Everything round you may be in a hideous mess and jumble.
That cannot be helped: take hold of your tools manfully; set to work
upon the job that lies next to your hand, and so long as you are working
well and vigorously, you will not be troubled with the vapours. Be
content with being yourself, and leave the results to fate. Sometimes
with his odd facility for turning outwards the ugliest side of his
opinions, he would call this selfishness. It is a kind of selfishness
which, if everyone practised it, would not be such a bad thing.

I must mention, though briefly, certain writings which represent his
views upon religious matters: I have sufficiently indicated his
position, which was never materially changed. His thoughts ran in the
old grooves, though perhaps with a rather clearer perception of their
direction. In June 1884 he published an article upon the 'Unknown and
the Unknowable' in the 'Nineteenth Century,' declaring that Mr. Herbert
Spencer's 'Unknowable' and Mr. Harrison's 'Humanity' were mere shadowy
figments. 'Religion,' he maintains, will not survive theology. To this,
however, he adds, with rather surprising calmness, that morality will
survive religion. If the Agnostics and Positivists triumph, it will be
transformed, not abolished. The Christian admiration for self-sacrifice,
indeed, and the Christian mysticism will disappear, and it will turn out
that the respectable man of the world and the lukewarm believer were
after all in the right. Considering his own dislike to the mystic and
the priestly view of things, this might almost seem to imply a
reconciliation with the sceptics. He observes, indeed, in a letter that
there is really little difference between himself and Mr. Harrison,
except in Mr. Harrison's more enthusiastic view of human nature. But he
confesses also that the article has given pleasure to his enemies and
pain to his friends. Though his opinions, in short, are sceptical, the
consequences seem to him so disagreeable that he has no desire to insist
upon them. In fact, he wrote little more upon these topics. He was,
indeed, afterwards roused to utterance by an ingenious attempt of Mr.
Mivart to show a coincidence between full submission to the authority of
the Catholic Church and an