to man.

This habit of speech and the temper of mind from which it springs, we have said, overlook the fallibility which always cleaves "To err is human," is an apothegm which is not less true of the intellectual than of the moral history of man. We are all, even the best and wisest, liable to mistake. Nay, all men have run into mistake. There is not, and never has been, an uninspired man on earth, who has not in a greater or less degree misapprehended Divine truth. What changes have taken place in the opinions of honest inquirers, as they have pursued their investigations into the meaning of Scripture. Persuasions which had been held for years, with a tenacity that seemed to preclude any alteration of belief, have been effaced by later impressions. Truth has been seen under new aspects, and the judgments which were formed under a one-sided view of its character have given place to such as were more consistent with its manifold relationship to the great universe. A wise man is continually correcting his opinions. The wisest are always the most modest. Now, that any one in the face of these facts should claim for himself the attributes of the Omniscient Mind, is as sad as it is absurd. What more preposterous or pitiable than that a being of such limited powers as we possess, and with these in only an incipient state of development, should clothe himself with the assumption of infalli bility, and pronounce those who differ from him in fatal error? How arrogant is it for a man-the creature of yesterday, who is enwrapt in imperfection, and whose experience should teach him deep humility, to say, 'I know I am right.' He who can use such language shows how little he really knows of himself, or of the conditions on which truth can be ascertained.

The dogmatist also, we added, disregards the rights of others. Plainly he does so, when his arrogance denies to them the privilege of forming their own opinions upon a perusal of the Scriptures, and calls them to adopt his creed or his judgment of what is right as the only safe interpretation of the Divine will. Men are continually offending in this way; yet nothing can involve more palpable injustice. What! shall I be deprived of the privilege with which God has entrusted me, of construing his instructions according to my best ability, so making him and him alone, through his accredited messengers, my teacher, and be compelled to accept the

construction which some one or more of my fellow-mortals has put upon his words? Must I sit, not at the feet of Jesus, but of a man like myself, who undertakes-presumption as wicked as it is foolish!-to speak as he spoke, "with authority?" God help us to resist such encroachment upon the rights of every disciple of Christ! We have responsibilities as well as privileges-responsibilities created by our possession of privileges. Shall we suffer the latter to be wrested from us, while we must continue to lie under the weight of the former? God forbid!

The conduct of the dogmatist will appear still more unreasonable, if we consider under what different systems of faith and practice it has been exhibited. Men holding opposite opinions have rivalled each other in the vehemence with which they have asserted, each the absolute truth and importance of his own belief. The longest chapter in the history of the Christian Church, and the most disgraceful, would relate the influence of dogmatism. Rome hurled anathemas from the Vatican, because she knew that heretics were in the wrong; and Calvin ruled Geneva like a Pope, because he knew he was in the right. What a miserable spectacle of human weakness! The English Church was positive in regard to the sanctity of its ritual, and so drove the Puritans from their altars and their homes. The Puritans came here and planted dogmatism on the soil of America, where it has yielded many a luxuriant harvest since. If there be any one thing pre-eminently foolish, it is the introduction of this vice into a Protestant community. We can almost pardon it in a Church which is built openly and wholly upon the basis of an assumed infallibility; but when they, who claim the right of private judgment in defiance of this bold pretension, become imitators of that which they disown, and cover themselves with a garment of inconsistency which almost conceals their excellences, we can neither pardon nor endure such treason against the highest prerogatives of the soul.

For not only is dogmatism absurd. It is mischievous, in spite of its inability to accomplish its purpose. It wishes to impose the same faith on all men; which it can never do. But this it can do -enkindle rancor, strife, and the passions of hell in Christian bosoms. This it has done-made enemies of those who have trampled under foot the law of brotherly love which as disciples of the same

Master they were bound to observe. Oh! the miseries and crimes that have come from this source-the jealousies, the falsehoods, the angry feelings, the secret and the open wickedness! It is a dark catalogue. We will not attempt to unrol its sad lines.

Yet, notwithstanding the absurdity and mischief which are inseparable from positiveness in religion, it has a wonderful effect upon many minds, bringing them under its power, and conquering them not convincing nor persuading, but subduing them-by its tone of authority alone. There always have been those who seemed to be overpowered by the assertions of dogmatism, as the torrent sweeping down the hill bears the loose soil along with it. They attempt but feeble, if any resistance. The effect of mere positiveness in this community, at this time, is amazing. It is thought that men who speak so confidently must have better grounds for their opinion than those who show more modesty and more candor. Yet positiveness in the advocates of a doctrine is no proof of its correctness. Do we not see this every day? The grossest outrages upon reason and Scripture are perpetrated by men, who talk of the wickedness of rejecting their belief with a flippant solemnity which it is difficult to reconcile with the supposition of a true reverence in their hearts. We mean not however to call in question the depth of their religious sentiments; but to expose the error of judging others by the measurement of their own creed. Still as long as men shall tremble before the judicial acts of dogmatism, it will doubtless continue to exercise the functions of high Heaven and parody almighty judgment on earth. Such methods of conversion ought not to move us from our integrity. What reason is there for changing our faith, in another's assertion that it is a dangerous faith.? His assertion does not make it so. With equal propriety we may pronounce the same sentence on his faith. Neither our arrogance nor his would prove that either was right in point of doctrine, but only that both were wrong in spirit and practice.

But,' some may reply, it startles us to hear another say, that he knows he is right. It makes us doubt our own persuasions, for he speaks with an assurance that we do not feel. We wish we could feel as certain as he does.' A single inquiry may relieve their minds from this unhappy distrust. How does any

one know he is right? He cannot know it, except in the same way in which we may know that we are right. There are only two possible ways in which such a conviction could be established in any mind,—either by the faithful use of all means of arriving at the truth and the clearness of result which should be attained, or by a direct influence from the Spirit of truth affording special and plenary illumination. The former of these methods is accessible to every one; the latter may be claimed by thousands, and has been claimed by those who have obtained diametrically opposite assurances, but can be a proper ground of reliance to no other mind than that which receives the illumination, because no one else can have any proof that it is enjoyed. The testimony of another's consciousness, as he deems it, on such a subject, has not, and ought not to have any force with me, because it is liable to the suspicion which arises from the fact, that testimony of this kind has again and again been invalidated by the contradictions which its reception would make it necessary for us to ascribe to the Author of all truth.

'Still how much more comfortable it must be, to feel such an assurance!' Suppose it were, the question is, which is the right or safe feeling, not which the more comfortable. A feeling based on the presumption of infallibility, being intrinsically false, cannot be either right or safe. And in regard to comparative comfort, we should say, that of two men, one of whom entertained this assurance of the undeniable soundness of his faith, whilst the other calmly rested on the convictions of his own mind, but admitted the possibility of error, and welcomed whatever light might come to him from legitimate sources of instruction, the latter held a far more enviable position than the former. It is not necessary that we should live in disquiet, because we refuse to retreat within the armed garrison of positiveness. The alternative is not between dogmatism and doubt. We may maintain an unwavering reliance upon the interpretation which we give to the language of Scripture, and derive from it peace and strength, while we dare not arrogate the attributes of an Infinite Intelligence, nor attempt to wield the thunders of Omnipotence.

There is still one course of reasoning-short and specious, but fallacious, by which many persons justify their submission to the

clamors of the dogmatist. You admit,' they say, that we may believe all he believes and yet be saved; but he affirms that if we believe only what you believe, we must be lost. Now it is safer on general grounds to believe too much than too little, because what we have over the truth can only be an inconvenience, while what we want of it will be a fatal omission in our creed; and since, by the statement on the one side and on the other, we cannot lapse into fatal error by embracing ever so much doctrine, while we may incur the Divine displeasure by remaining where we are, it is better for us to embrace the whole that is offered us and make our faith as capacious as possible.' The mistake in this reasoning, by which many, we suspect, are deluded, consists in mingling two statements which can properly be regarded only as antagonist to one another; yet, by taking a part from one and a part from the other, are made to yield this deceptive result. We do not admit that to believe too much is a whit more safe than to believe too little. Man is bound to believe what God has revealed, and to add more than this to his faith is just as bold impiety as to take away any thing from it. We do not say that a disbelief of what some account indispensable to the completeness of Christian faith will be a fatal omission. That is the assertion of the dogmatist, and we deny its correctness. We allow, that if a person honestly arrive at conclusions very different from us, through patient and humble study of the Scriptures, he will not therefore be shut out from the kingdom of Heaven. But we do not admit, that it would not have been better for him to have found in the Bible the same precious truths which we have found there, and to have seen them as we see them, embraced within the glorious circle of a perfect unity. And we do not admit, that he will pass without condemnation, and fearful condemnation, who indolently accepts the faith which is offered him and believes as much as he can for the sake of including all possible chances of salvation within his creed. There is no safety where there is not honesty-honesty of mind and heart. That faith is worth nothing-it will only be a mill-stone hung by suicidal hands around the soul to sink it deeper in destruction-which is taken up without inquiry, and is cherished on a sordid calculation of future consequences. The faith which sanctifies the soul, which quickens the energies of the spiritual life into a