nce,
and the reading of the proofs has brought back to me vividly the long
winters in which I pondered over the matter they contain, and wrote and
rewrote the chapters.

I had not thought to add anything to them by way of an afterword.
Nothing could be farther from my mind than to pose as a theologian; and,
were it not for one or two of the letters I have received, I should have
supposed that no reader could have thought of making the accusation that
I presumed to speak for any one except myself. In a book of this
kind, the setting forth of a personal view of religion is not only
unavoidable, but necessary; since, if I wrote sincerely, Mr. Hodder's
solution must coincide with my own--so far as I have been able to work
one out. Such as it is, it represents many years of experience and
reflection. And I can only crave the leniency of any trained theologian
who may happen to peruse it.

No one realizes, perhaps, the incompleteness of the religious
interpretations here presented more keenly than I. More significant,
more vital elements of the truth are the rewards of a mind which
searches and craves, especially in these days when the fruit of so many
able minds lies on the shelves of library and bookshop. Since the last
chapter was written, many suggestions have come to me which I should
like to have the time to develop for this volume. But the nature of
these elements is positive,--I can think of nothing I should care to
subtract.

Here, then, so far as what may be called religious doctrine is
concerned, is merely a personal solution. We are in an age when the
truth is being worked out through many minds, a process which seems
to me both Christian and Democratic. Yet a gentleman has so far
misunderstood this that he has already accused me, in a newspaper, of
committing all the heresies condemned by the Council of Chalcedon,--and
more!

I have no doubt that he is right. My consolation must be that I have as
company--in some of my heresies, at least--a goodly array of gentlemen
who wear the cloth of the orthodox churches whose doctrines he accuses
me of denying. The published writings of these clergymen are accessible
to all. The same critic declares that my interpretations are without
"authority." This depends, of course; on one's view of "authority." But
his accusation is true equally against many men who--if my observation
be correct--are doing an incalculable service for religion by giving
to the world their own pe