163 
Again, “It is only an ancient Christian-Hebrew prejudice 
to consider monotheism in itself, as contrasted with poly- 
theism, the higher form of religion.” 
The absurdity in the author’s case of discussing the relative 
merits of monotheism and polytheism will be evident from 
the following passage, in which he rejects altogether the 
existence of a personal God. 
“ If we endeavour to conceive of a creator of the cosmos, 
as an absolute personality, we may be sufficiently instructed 
by the foregoing that we are merely dealing with an idle 
phantasy.” 
In connection with the immortality of the soul, he has the 
following needlessly offensive passage : — 
“ Even the apostle Paul .... believed, or fancied that he 
believed, — for I deem him better than his speech, — that if the 
dead rose not, then he and men like him must be fools, if 
they would not rather eat and drink instead of endangering 
themselves for the sake of their conviction.” 
One more instance, and I have done with Strauss. 
“ If the preceding consideration has conducted us to the 
conclusion that we can no longer either hold the idea of a per- 
sonal God, or of life after death, then it would seem that the 
question with which we have prefaced this section — if we still 
have a religion — must be answered in the negative.” 
I have given pain, I doubt not, gentlemen, to you as well 
as to myself, by dwelling even for so short a time on such 
misei’able sophistry as is contained in Mill’s half-admissions 
and lamentable rejection of divine truth, and in Strauss’s 
absolute rejection of any religion whatever. 
The books from which I have quoted are freely circulated 
amongst our youth, — the one iu its original shape as edited by 
the step-daughter of Mr. Mill, and the other in a translation 
(which has arrived at a second edition, corresponding to the 
sixth German edition) by Mathilde Blind. 
I do not know whether there is anything significant in 
the fact that a woman is the editor of each ; but, to my own 
mind, the circumstance adds a deeper shadow to the religious 
darkness of the age. 
And the danger arising from such publications is not to be 
measured by the effect they have on men who are capable by 
their learning of detecting the sophistries and falsehoods that 
are contained in them, and who know that there is scarcely a 
quibble or a rational objection put forward which was not quite 
as well known to the ancient philosophers, and in many cases 
much better discussed. But it is to young educated persons 
