the maintenance of the right of the strong to hold, and the duty of the weak to submit. In which case Christ came in vain for him who believes; and was not God for him who maintains as righteous the order of society as we have it at this day. No man who goes to the root of his faith, and cares to look at it sincerely and without the haze of an artificial atmosphere between him and truth, can deny this position. If the alternative is terrible, the question is as momentous; and anything would be better than this fearful national hypocrisy, whereby we confess a certain faith with our lips, and absolutely refuse to translate it into practice.

I would also say, in answer to an accusation more than once repeated, of having written. this book as a mere jeu d'esprit, that I declare I have never written anything with so much earnestness, such a passionate

desire to say out the truth as it seems to me; and that to enforce the supreme necessity of absolute sincerity between faith and practice, religion and social life, was the sole object I had in view.

E. LYNN LINTON.

LONDON, June, 1874.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

AS JOSHUA DAVIDSON's biographer I have been much perplexed by the various reviews of my friend's life. Some have seen in it a mere outflow of cant; others a parody of the life of Christ; some have condemned it for its bad political economy in holding that we working men have wrongs, and that capital has oppressed and does still heavily oppress us; some for its sinful, others for its silly, aim at that universal brotherhood and class equalization which JOSHUA maintained to be the logical political outcome of Christianity; some have pronounced his life a failure because of the weakness inherent in itself; others, again, see in it a noble effort that fell short of success by reason of the unchristian state of Christendom. In fact, the

book has met with the same varied reception as did his work; and it is such as is given to all men who make bold to strip the veil from a convenient sham, and to force on the world the recognition of an unwelcome truth and the need of a disquieting decision.

No one wants to be troubled with logical Christianity. The idle ask only to be left in peace-things which did for their forefathers are good enough for them, and they hate the dust of cleaning-days; the rich do not wish their fat security to be endangered; the timid are afraid of new ways; the ingenious who have constructed a well-fitting puzzle by clever compromises despise the simplicity of first principles; sociologists deny the claims of individualism in favour of general laws; and all sectarians hold correct theological doctrine as more important than faithful imitative action. In the midst of

these stand a few, earnest for absolute

sincerity and they have recognised the

real meaning of JOSHUA's life; and only they.

I go back on the question asked before, and not answered by one of the reviewers: Which is true, Science or Christ? If Science, why then do we superstitiously hold to the letter of a faith whereof the spirit is dead ?-a faith, moreover, which preaches bad political economy and imperfect sociology all round:If Christ, how can we delay another hour in translating His precepts and His practice, so passionately humanitarian as both were, into our own social and political action? The obstacles to practical Christianity come from professing Christians. Let those who can, satisfactorily explain that phenomenon. For myself I am unable; so was JOSHUA; and one scarcely envies the subtle, shifty Edipus who could.