as well turn Jew:-and how much better remain

philosopher!"

The fault in the instance we have adduced was not that of a want of temper; for we must admire the mild and conciliatory tone of the writer, vested as he was with authority: nor was it a fault to endeavour to ascertain (if the means of doing so had been at hand) a circumstance of an event beyond all others worthy of earnest regard. But the error-and a fatal error in its consequences, was that of admitting religious importance to attach to a particular which confessedly lay beyond the range of revelation, and had been made no part of Christian duty. Not only was the point abstractedly trivial, but it was the subject of no injunction. How could it be imagined, unless through a circuit of false assumptions, that conscience was implicated in an observance concerning which, not only was there no explicit command, but no certain evidence bearing upon the fact whereon the observance rested? Granting the paschal solemnities to have been acceptable religious services, and granting it to have been a pious act to fast in commemoration of the Lord's death and burial, and to celebrate his return to life with hymns, illuminations, and other festivities, yet, as by the acknowledgment of all, except zealots, the precise moment in which sorrow was turned into gladness could not be ascertained, and must remain mere matter of surmise, was it not

an egregious violation of common sense to make such a point the subject of anxious controversy, and the occasion of ecclesiastical disunion?

Dionysius, it is true, writes and decides much more like a Christian than like a supercilious dignitary, and if all had been such as himself, the foolish disagreement must soon have been forgotten. But what was likely to happen in the distracted parish of Basilides? A few perhaps, the lovers of peace, would hail with joy the patriarchal decision. Not so the fervent and the dogmatic; not so those whose piety meant nothing apart from virulence. Such-and are

there not such in every community ?-would listen to the canonic letter, when publicly read in the Church, with clouded visages; they would exchange among themselves glances of insolent dissent; they would cluster about the church doors after the assembly had broke up, would gather to themselves open-mouthed hearers, would inveigh against the easiness and worldly indifference of men in high station; they would impeach the motives and the piety, first of the Alexandrian patriarch, and then of his surrogate-their own pastor. The intrinsic merits of the question would be hotly agitated, and its vital importance be insisted upon the consciences of the feeble and the scrupulous, of women and slaves, would be entangled and placed at the disposal of the despotic leaders of the sect. These

leaders, committed to a course of open opposition, would find it necessary to have recourse to every means of exaggeration and irritation tending to sustain the zeal of their adherents. A breach with the Church would be deemed indispensable for securing the rights of conscience fellowship must be refused, first with the general body of believers; next with those who, though holding mainly with themselves in the question at issue, yet hesitated to adjudge Christendom entire to perdition on account of its error in this single point. Lastly (if indeed the absurdity of intolerance ever reaches an ultimate stage) lastly, all correspondence must be cut off with whoever would not denounce the moderate middle men above named. In the end, the little flaming nucleus of immaculate rigidity, fasting till broad day of Easter Sunday, and blessing itself in the straitness of its circle, would be able to look down upon all the world, and upon all the church, as wrong and lost! Meanwhile the amiable Dionysius grieves, and prays too for the contumacious band. But should he not remember that the faction drew its consequence from his own error in granting, for a moment, that Christian duty and conscience could be at all concerned in a controversy of this frivolous sort? Should he not have known that if men are encouraged by persons of sense and authority to attach importance to idle scrupulosities, they will not fail

to forget solid morality, as well as to spurn meekness and love?

The follies of one age differ from those of another in names only. Let those boast of the intelligence of the nineteenth century, who think it furnishes no parallels to the infatuations of the third. It is often anxiously askedWhat hinders the progress of the Gospel in a country like our own, and in an age of liberty and knowledge? It might be quite enough to reply, that the hinderance is drawn from the form of impertinent and childish discord which has been thrown over it by some of its most devoted adherents. If then our Christianity does not triumph as it ought, we will not vex at the infidelity of Longinus; but mourn the superstition of Dionysius.

SECTION IX.

THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE NOT FANATICAL.

(THE OLD TESTAMENT.)

THE mind seeks refreshment in contemplating Truth, after conversing long with the follies and crimes that mark as well the religious as the civil history of nations. A tranquil delight, a delight enhanced by contrast, is felt when we return to set foot upon that solid ground of reason and purity which the Scriptures open before us. How melancholy soever, or revolting may be the spectacle of human affairs, a happier prospect is within view.-In the religion of the Bible there is certaintythere is unsullied goodness-there is divinity. Let the inferences be what they may-and we should take care they are sound, which we feel compelled to draw from the general course of events, it remains always true that the