Some of the above thoughts took a still more definite shape, as follows.  It is clear that A. B. and X. Y. would have behaved towards me more kindly, more justly, and more wisely, if they had consulted their excellent strong sense and amiable natures, instead of following (what they suppose to be) the commands of the word of God.  They have misinterpreted that word:  true:  but this very thing shows, that one may go wrong by trusting one’s power of interpreting the book, rather than trusting one’s common sense to judge without the book.  It startled me to find, that I had exactly alighted on the Romish objection to Protestants, that an infallible book is useless, unless we have an infallible interpreter.  But it was not for some time, that, after twisting the subject in all directions to avoid it, I brought out the conclusion, that “to go against one’s common sense in obedience to Scripture is a most hazardous proceeding:”  for the “rule of Scripture” means to each of us nothing but his own fallible interpretation; and to sacrifice common sense to this, is to mutilate one side of our mind at the command of another side.  In the Nicene age, the Bible was in people’s hands, and the Spirit of God surely was not withheld:  yet I had read, in one of the Councils an insane anathema was passed:  “If any one call Jesus God-man, instead of God and man, let him be accursed.”  Surely want of common sense, and dread of natural reason, will be confessed by our highest orthodoxy to have been the distemper of that day.

* * * * *

In all this I still remained theoretically convinced, that the contents of the Scriptures, rightly interpreted, were supreme and perfect truth; indeed, I had for several years accustomed myself to speak and think as if the Bible were our sole source of all moral knowledge:  nevertheless, there were practically limits, beyond which I did not, and could not, even attempt to blind my moral sentiment at the dictation of the Scripture; and this had peculiarly frightened (as I afterwards found) the first friend who welcomed me from abroad.  I was unable to admit the doctrine of “reprobation,” as apparently taught in the 9th chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans;—­that “God hardens in wickedness whomever He pleases, in order that He may show his long-suffering” in putting off their condemnation to a future dreadful day:  and especially, that to all objectors it is a sufficient confutation—­“Nay, but O man, who art thou, that repliest against God?” I told my friend, that I worshipped in God three great attributes, all independent,—­Power, Goodness, and Wisdom:  that in order to worship Him acceptably, I must discern these as realities with my inmost heart, and not merely take them for granted on authority:  but that the argument which was here pressed upon me was an effort to supersede the necessity of my discerning Goodness in God:  it bade me simply to infer Goodness from Power,—­that is to say, establish