the midst of an entirely new subject, and an hour hence we shall be even less disposed than now to say goodnight.

MAX

Conway is right. Besides, I could not do justice to my own views without liberal treatment as to time. But before quite taking leave of the subject which has been so thoroughly discussed in the earlier part of the day, let me beg of you to take away with you for consideration one or two points of great interest, as it seems to me. Throughout the whole of the debate on Leonard's point you have assumed the inseparable connection and interdependence of dogma, religion, and external infallible guidance. Now we

shall, I suppose, all agree that human nature is inseparably associated with a religious principle, and that human beings must therefore have always stood in need of true religion. But if dogma is an essential ingredient of true religion, it must always have been a part of the purpose of God, according to your recent argument, to provide his creatures with an infallible guide to dogmatic truth. Now then, let me ask, what guide, before the foundation of the Church of Christ, ever exhibited the signs which we conceive to be necessarily characteristic of an infallible religious guide ? You must not refer me to the Old Testament; for the claims of the Old Testament have already been refuted by the arguments which confounded Conway's advocacy of the Bible. Neither can you refer me to the prophets; for there were false as well as true prophets; and there was no visible, external guide with the admitted signs

of infallibility to tell men which was which. The rival pretensions of different prophets could, in fact, be tested by nothing but reference to what men felt to be the voice of God within themselves. Nor is this all. There was a time when there was neither a written word nor an inspired class of teachers, and yet that was a time when Enoch 'walked with God,' and when Abraham was 'the friend of God.' Surely there was then such a thing as true religion; but we have no reason for believing that God's servants then were provided with any external infallible teacher, or any other guide than the still, small voice in which Elijah, on the top of Carmel, recognized the persuasive accents of the Holy Spirit. Is it not then worth considering whether the arguments from which you evoke the necessary connection between dogma, religion, and authority, may not be turned right round, so as to shake the supposition on which your whole case rests. Your argument substantially runs thus: 'If the religion which God has given to man is (as we believe it to be) essentially dogmatic, then God must have provided for man an external infallible guide to dogmatic truth.' My counter argument runs thus: If, during the greater part of human history, man has been left by God without any external infallible guide, dogma cannot form an essential part of the religion which God has given to man.' When these two resultants of the same train of thought are compared, it will be seen that my argument has more substance than yours; for, whilst your argument rests upon nothing but a pure assumption— viz. that dogma is an essential part of true religion—

6

my argument rests upon a plain fact-viz. that no religious teacher existing on the earth before the foundation of the Christian Church exhibited plainly and unmistakably those signs which, we all agree, must necessarily characterize an infallible guide to dogmatic truth. But Conway is looking deprecatingly at me, and the dews are beginning to make themselves felt. So let us go in; and, Basil, I shall be ready to-morrow, if Leonard and Conway are not indisposed, to give you the satisfaction for which I see you are longing.

DIALOGUE III.

BASIL

The turn which Max gave to our discussion of yesterday took us all by surprise- me, perhaps, more than any of you; but my anxiety to continue the debate did not, as you suspected, originate in my combative propensities, but in a feeling of intense curiosity. Before I can venture to condemn, or even to attack Max, I must understand far better than I do now what he means. Max began his argument yesterday with a definition of dogma, which I readily accept, because he is clearly entitled to define the terms. which he intends to use in any way he may think fit. But the conclusions to which he would lead us with regard to the relation subsisting between what he calls dogmas and true religion are so startling at first sight, that we must, as a matter of common prudence, examine our ground carefully before going forwards. According to his definition of dogma, the doctrines of the Church with regard to the divinity of Our Lord, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection of Our Lord, are all dogmas; and if dogmas, however true, form no essential part of true religion, we may as safely expunge these doctrines from our creed as the doc

trine of the divine commission of Mohammed. Indeed, the more I reflect upon the matter, the more clearly do I perceive how impossible it is to separate dogma from religion without separating religion from faith.

6

MAX

6

it

I am glad that at the very commencement of our discussion you should have brought into such close contactdogma' and 'faith'. In so doing you have touched the key-note of all that I have to say, and have also uncovered the source of the radical differences which must, I fear, for a time at all events, continue to divide us. But as our best chance of coming to an agreement is to be perfectly intelligible to each other, we ought, I think, to launch one more definition—a definition of faith.' We both of us, I am persuaded, feel our hearts stirred within us by the associations which we severally connect with the word faith.' We both think of it as 'the gift of God.' We look upon as the leaven which, however much it may be hidden in the barrel of meal, has virtue enough to leaven the whole mass. We recognize in it, especially when united with the principle of love, the fountain of all spiritual graces, of all that made the life and death of Christ Himself the glory of men and angels; and yet 1 never hear you speak of faith without wondering what can, in your judgment, be the distinguishing characteristic of this mighty power. To me it seems that a very large part of the bitterness, the misconception, the passionate and intolerant sectarianism which tend to disgust all devout minds with theological con