by our modern "pillars" that one of the chief features of the
work of Jesus was the instauration of Religion by the abolition of what
our sticklers for articles and liturgies, with unconscious humour, call
the narrow restrictions of the Law. Yet, if James knew this, how could
the bitter controversy with Paul have arisen; and why did not one or the
other side quote any of the various sayings of Jesus, recorded in the
Gospels, which directly bear on the question--sometimes, apparently, in
opposite directions.

So, if I am asked to call myself an "infidel," I reply: To what doctrine
do you ask me to be faithful? Is it that contained in the Nicene and the
Athanasian Creeds? My firm belief is that the Nazarenes, say of the year
40, headed by James, would have stopped their ears and thought worthy of
stoning the audacious man who propounded it to them. Is it contained in
the so-called Apostles' Creed! I am pretty sure that even that would
have created a recalcitrant commotion at Pella in the year 70, among the
Nazarenes of Jerusalem, who had fled from the soldiers of Titus. And
yet, if the unadulterated tradition of the teachings of "the Nazarene"
were to be found anywhere, it surely should have been amidst those not
very aged disciples who may have heard them as they were delivered.

Therefore, however sorry I may be to be unable to demonstrate that, if
necessary, I should not be afraid to call myself an "infidel," I cannot
do it. "Infidel" is a term of reproach, which Christians and
Mahommedans, in their modesty, agree to apply to those who differ from
them. If he had only thought of it, Dr. Wace might have used the term
"miscreant," which, with the same etymological signification, has the
advantage of being still more "unpleasant" to the persons to whom it is
applied. But why should a man be expected to call himself a "miscreant"
or an "infidel"? That St. Patrick "had two birthdays because he was a
twin" is a reasonable and intelligible utterance beside that of the man
who should declare himself to be an infidel, on the ground of denying
his own belief. It may be logically, if not ethically, defensible that a
Christian should call a Mahommedan an infidel and _vice versa_; but, on
Dr. Wace's principles, both ought to call themselves infidels, because
each applies the term to the other.

Now I am afraid that all the Mahommedan world would agree in
reciprocating that appellation to Dr. Wace himself. I once visited the
Hazar