t is drunk out of an
orthodox bottle, with the Church's label glued firmly upon it. The
pretext for the charge of heresy against these eminent Biblical
scholars is that they are undermining the Bible; but in conducting the
trial, prosecutors themselves refuse to abide by the testimony of the
Scriptures to decide the matter and erect above them soul creed or
catechism.

But let us stop for a moment and ask whence came these creeds and
catechisms themselves? What else was their origin than out of the
reason of man; out of the brains of scholars, as they in former years
criticised and interpreted the same Scripture, and nature, and laws of
God? And these scholars of the past were quite as fallible, quite as
partisan, and far less well informed than our scholars to-day. Thus it
is the dogmatists themselves who exalt the reason of man above the
word of God, forbidding us to listen to the more direct voice of God
in our own soul; forbidding us to decipher the revelations which the
Divine Hand has written on the rocks, and tree, and animal structure,
and even frowning upon that profounder study of the Scripture called
the higher criticism, but bidding us accept, in its stead, the
man-made substitute of some council or assembly of former generations.

There have undoubtedly been periods when the doubt with which the
Church had to deal was mainly frivolous or carnal; a passionate
rebellion of the worldly nature, attacking the essential truths of
religion. But such is not the nature of the doubt which is at present
occupying the public eye; such is not the doubt most characteristic of
our generation. It proceeds from serious motives. It is a doubt marked
by essential reverence and loyalty to truth. It is a desire for more
solid foundations; for the attainment of the naked realities of
existence. It is a necessary incident of the great intellectual
awakening of our century. As the modern intellect comes back on Sunday
from its week-day explorations of the history of Rome, or the myths of
Greece, or the religious ideas of Buddha or Zoroaster, it must return
to the contemplation of the Christian dogmas under new influences. It
will necessarily demand what better evidence the law of Moses or the
creed of Nicea has than the law of Mana or the text of the Zendavesta?
The scepticism of our age is not so much directed against the great
truths of religion as against the man-made dogmas that have usurped
the sacred seat. If irreverent, s