Layman.-When I first read your Poor Man's Preservative against Popery, I thought I had settled all my doubts. But I do not know how it happened, that the more I wished to establish my convictions, the unsteadier I felt on the foundations in my religious principles.

Clergyman.-I am not at all surprised, for the same has happened to me.

L.-What do you mean? Are you dissatisfied with your little book?

C.-Completely.

L.-Were, then, the Roman Catholics right in what they said against you?

C.-I am very far from granting that. My arguments, and, more than my arguments, my facts, against Popery, I still think unanswerable. I believe I combated the Popery of Rome most effectually, but I did it in the spirit of another Popery, i. e. in the spirit of the Episcopal Popery of England.

L.-Well; you seem to express something like my own thoughts. You left Christianity entirely dependent upon a Clergy; but why that Clergy should be those ordained by the Bishops of the English Church, I cannot understand.

C.-No more can I.

L.-And yet you spoke in such a spirit of submission, that it seemed as if you were on your knees, promising obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

C.-You say nothing but the truth: I felt as you express it. So difficult it is to strip oneself of habits early acquired. The religious feelings of my youth revived, the moment I resolved to seek for spiritual improvement in the Church of England. The zealous Catholic priest of fiveand-twenty re-appeared in the Protestant convert of forty. I gave way to the revived religious sentiments of early years, and found myself an adept in the Evangelism of the Church of England. One thing alone was wanting to make me a luminary of that party-the will to put an end to my religious inquiries. I could not do, what a celebrated convert to the same party declares of himself :-I could not "lay my conclusions upon the shelf,"* never more to question them.

L.-So, like myself, you examined and increased your doubts?

C.-I did so.

L.-Have you then arrived at a satisfactory conclusion? C.-Certainly. I never was perfectly satisfied in my life till I attained my present view.

L.-And what is that view?

C.-A very clear one that Christianity does not consist in such doctrines as those about which Divines dispute. Have you read my little work on Heresy and Orthodoxy?

[* See the dishonest advice given to Dr. Arnold, and recorded in his Life, without any apparent perception of its immoral character.Vol. i. p. 22.]

L.-I have not, and fear I shall want time and opportunity to read it.

C.-Well, then: I will try to give you the substance of what I have published since my religious fever abated.

L.—I wish, in the first place, you would be kind enough to tell me your meaning of that expression, Religious Fever.

C.-I mean what is commonly called, by a word of Greek derivation, which is frequently in people's mouths,— Enthusiasm.

L.-I am glad you will explain that word to me. It frequently perplexes me.

C.-Mark me, then: Whatever, in religious matters, is done or felt with more vehemence than a man can justify by sound reasons, is religious fever, or enthusiasm. It is a disease of the mind. Take a plain example: The women of the priestly, or Brahmin caste, in India, throw themselves into the fire which consumes the dead bodies of their husbands. They are generally under a vehement conviction that, from the flames, they will rise instantly to heaven; and would consider it a cruel insult to be prevented.

L.-But, that is a plain absurdity.

C. So much the better for my explanation. The religious act I have mentioned is not an absurdity for those who have been brought up in the Brahminical religion. A Catholic, who would punish the denial of one of his Articles of faith with death, is not more convinced of the lawfulness and desirableness of that punishment than the Hindoo of the meritoriousness of the Widow-Burnings. Their respective enthusiasms consist in the disproportion between the vehemence of their belief and the grounds of the convictions.

L.-Yet people say, and I am inclined to believe it, that no great performance can be brought about without enthusiasm.

C.-Ardour is generally necessary in the practical difficulties which men have to overcome. But ardour is of the nature of passion; and it is well known that a calm determination is more to be depended upon than a fiery vehemence. This is true of practical undertakings: how much more true must it be in regard to the investigation of truth? Observe, nevertheless, what efforts are made on all sides to give people the Religious fever as a preparation for their choice of religion.

L.-I do not know what efforts you mean.

C.-You may observe them on every side. In the first place, what is called Education consists chiefly in taking possession of the young minds, and binding them to some set of priests, or parsons, or ministers. The most unquestionable and perfect infallibility on the side of the parents or guardians could hardly authorize them to impress the children so absolutely in favour of their religious sect, as the most narrow-minded and ignorant do in regard to the helpless creatures who fall under their control. Add to this, the connection which exists between the various relations of life and the various religious denominations. Follow the children to school, and to the Universities or Colleges, and you will see the most powerful influences employed in removing the subject of religion from the jurisdiction of judgment and reason, to that of passion and feeling.

L.-But what would you have people do with their children? Are they to be brought up without Religion,

till they can decide for themselves on that most intricate subject?

C.-If Religion consist in doctrines and creeds, and if, provided they be the Parents' doctrines and creeds, Heaven will approve of them in the children,--in that case, nothing is to be done but to declare all parents and guardians infallible in regard to their offspring and their wards. either religion does not consist in doctrines and creeds, or these are wrong doctrines and absurd creeds, I do not know how the present universal practice can be defended.

L.—Then you think that children should be brought up without Religion?

C.-That does not follow from what I have said. If you said that, according to my statement, children should be brought up without metaphysical doctrines and creeds, I would grant it.

L.-But what is religion without such creeds?

C.-Let me ask, in my turn, what is religion with such doctrines and creeds? It must be a matter of mere agreement among a party called Church.

L.-At all events, you will grant that children should be taught the essential doctrines of Christianity?

C.-Yes, when we have separated them from the nonessential. But who is to decide that point?

L.—I have heard Divines say, that since Providence has not given to children a higher authority than that of Parents, the parents must make the distinction.

C.-I think that the true inference from that fact is this: that since parents have not been enabled by Providence to agree upon such points, it is the Divine will that they do not meddle with them.