ons of mankind. In
spite of their differences, they are all afflicted with the same ailments,
and when we find that we encounter the same difficulties in other
religions as those with which we are ourselves contending, it is safe to
consider them as deeply rooted in human nature, and in this same nature,
be it weak or strong, to seek their solution. As comparative philology has
proved that many of the irregular nouns and verbs are really the most
regular and ancient, so it is with the irregular, that is, the miraculous
occurrences in the history of religion. Indeed, we may now say that it
would be a miracle if there were anywhere any religion without miracles,
or if the Scriptures on which any religion is based were not presented by
the priests and accepted by the believers as of superhuman, even divine
origin, and therefore infallible. In all these matters we must seek for
the reasons, and in this manner endeavour to understand their truth as
well as error.

Whether or not I have succeeded in proving that the world is rational, and
that mind is the _prius_ of matter, I must leave to the decision of the
Horseherd and his friends. Fortunately these questions are of that nature
that we may entertain different opinions upon them without accusing each
other of heresy. Many Darwinians, for instance, Romanes, and even Huxley,
have always considered themselves good Christians, although they believed
the doctrine of Darwin to be the only way of salvation. If, however, we
take up such questions as were propounded to me by the Horseherd, and
which have more to do with Christian theology than Christian religion,
there is an immediate change of tone, and unfortunately the difference of
view becomes at once a difference of aim. The moral element enters
immediately, and those who _believe_ otherwise are designated unbelievers,
though we do not at once stamp those who _think_ otherwise as incapable of
thought. Here lies the great difficulty in considering and treating calmly
religious, or rather, theological questions. There is little hope of
reaching a mutual understanding when the first attack is characterised by
such vigour as was shown by the Horseherd and many of his comrades. He
speaks at once of tales of fraud and deceit, and of the fantasies of the
Christian religion. He says that he is full of bloodthirstiness against
the Jewish idea of God, and believes that since the writings of Hume and
Schopenhauer, positive Christianity h