In view of the frequent assurances of the noted historian, _Th. Mommsen_, that he hates the sight of old Christian inscriptions(9) we may perhaps welcome it in the interest of history that he refrained from writing the fourth volume of his Roman history, wherein the Origin of Christianity was to be treated. One of his biographers asserts that the downfall of paganism through Christianity was a fact not to _Mommsen’s_ liking, that “a description of the decomposition of all things ancient, and the substitution therefor of the Nazarene spirit would not have been a labour of love.”(10) And again, when we see the well-known historian of philosophy, _F. Ueberweg_, in a letter to _F. A. Lange_, denouncing from the bitterness of his heart “the miserable beggar-principle of Christianity,” and the “surrendering of independence and of personal honour in favour of a servile submission to the master, who is made a Messiah, nay, even the incarnate _Son of God_,” then we may well dread the historical objectivity of a man of such notions in writing about the religion of Jesus Christ. With reference to the chief subject of psychology, the noted psychologist, _W. James_, writes with utmost frankness: “The soul is an entity, and truly one of the worst kind, a scholastic one, and something said to be destined for salvation or perdition. As far as I am concerned, I must frankly admit that the antipathy against the particular soul I find myself burdened with, is an old hardness of heart, which I cannot account for, not even to myself. I will admit that the formal disposition of the question in dispute would come to an end, if the existence of souls could be used for an explanatory principle. I admit the soul would be a means of unification, whereas the working of the brain, or ideas, show no harmonizing efficacy, no matter how thoroughly synchronical they be. Yet, despite these admissions, I never resort in my psychologizing to the soul.”