Such reconciliation commenced, I believe, from the tenth century, when the Latin moralists began to be studied as a part of a theological course.  It was continued with still greater results when Greek literature became accessible to churchmen.  Afterwards, the physics of Galileo and of Newton began not only to undermine numerous superstitions, but to give to men a confidence in the reality of abstract truth, and in our power to attain it in other domains than that of geometrical demonstration.  This, together with the philosophy of Locke, was taken up into Christian thought, and Political Toleration was the first fruit.  Beyond that point, English religion has hardly gone.  For in spite of all that has since been done in Germany for the true and accurate exposition of the Bible, and for the scientific establishment of the history of its component books, we still remain deplorably ignorant here of these subjects.  In consequence, English Christians do not know that they are unjust and utterly unreasonable, in expecting thoughtful men to abide by the creed of their ancestors.  Nor, indeed, is there any more stereotyped and approved calumny, than the declaration so often emphatically enunciated from the pulpit, that unbelief in the Christian miracles is the fruit of a wicked heart and of a soul enslaved to sin.  Thus do estimable and well-meaning men, deceived and deceiving one another, utter base slander in open church, where it is indecorous to reply to them,—­and think that they are bravely delivering a religions testimony.

No difficulty is encountered, so long as the inward and the outward rule of religion agree,—­by whatever names men call them,—­the Spirit and the Word—­or Reason and the Church,—­or Conscience and Authority.  None need settle which of the two rules is the greater, so long as the results coincide:  in fact, there is no controversy, no struggle, and also probably no progress.  A child cannot guess whether father or mother has the higher authority, until discordant commands are given; but then commences the painful necessity of disobeying one in order to obey the other.  So, also, the great and fundamental controversies of religion arise, only when a discrepancy is detected between the inward and the outward rule:  and then, there are only two possible solutions.  If the Spirit within us and the Bible (or Church) without us are at variance, we must either follow the inward and disregard the outward law; else we must renounce the inward law and obey the outward.  The Romanist bids us to obey the Church and crush our inward judgment:  the Spiritualist, on the contrary, follows his inward law, and, when necessary, defies Church, Bible, or any other authority.  The orthodox Protestant is better and truer than the Romanist, because the Protestant is not like the latter, consistent in error, but often goes right:  still he is inconsistent as to this point.  Against the Spiritualist he uses