religion, will make the subject of another volume, which, however, the author does not hope to publish for some time to come.  In the meanwhile he has endeavoured to furnish an answer to the question, What was Christ’s object in founding the Society which is called by his name, and how is it adapted to attain that object?

Thus the book comes before us as a serious facing of difficulties.  And that the writer lays stress on its being so viewed appears further from a letter which he wrote to the Spectator, repeating emphatically that the book is not one “written after the investigation was completed, but the investigation itself.”  The letter may be taken to complete the statement of the Preface:—­

I endeavoured in my Preface to describe the state of mind in which I undertook my book.  I said that the character and objects of Christ were at that time altogether incomprehensible to me, and that I wished to try whether an independent investigation would relieve my perplexity.  Perhaps I did not distinctly enough state that Ecce Homo is not a book written after the investigation was completed, but the investigation itself.

The Life of Christ is partly easy to understand and partly difficult.  This being so, what would a man do who wished to study it methodically?  Naturally he would take the easy part first.  He would collect, arrange, and carefully consider all the facts which are simple, and until he has done this, he would carefully avoid all those parts of his subject which are obscure, and which cannot be explained without making bold hypotheses.  By this course he would limit the problem, and in the meanwhile arrive at a probable opinion concerning the veracity of the documents, and concerning the characteristics, both intellectual and moral, of the person whose high pretensions he wished to investigate.

This is what I have done.  I have postponed altogether the hardest questions connected with Christ, as questions which cannot properly be discussed until a considerable quantity of evidence has been gathered about his character and views.  If this evidence, when collected, had appeared to be altogether conflicting and inconsistent, I should have been saved the trouble of proceeding any further; I should have said that Christ is a myth.  If it had been consistent, and had disclosed to me a person of mean and ambitious aims, I should have said, Christ is a deceiver.  Again, if it had exhibited a person of weak understanding and strong impulsive sensibility, I should have said Christ is a bewildered enthusiast.

In all these cases you perceive my method would have saved me a good deal of trouble.  As it is, I certainly feel bound to go on, though, as I say in my Preface, my progress will necessarily be slow.  But I am much engaged and have little time for theological study.  But pray do not suppose that postponing questions is only another