RELIGION WITHOUT DOGMA. 57 



these back again into audible vibrations, with so much of the indi- 

 vidual tone of a speaker as to be readily recognizable. Now, if iron, 

 which is comparatively so simple a thing, presents such a multitude of 

 properties and powers, if it be shown to have relations with all else in 

 Nature, if very important knowledge respecting it has but recently 

 come into our possession, how very cautiously should we proceed when 

 our subject of thought is not a chemical element, but, say, some large 

 question of human nature or public policy ! The little gray crystal of 

 iron is eloquent in bidding us have some decent hesitation, when we 

 are considering, say, some proposed legislation which is to affect the 

 complex sentiments, desires, and passions of men. For lack of that 

 decent hesitation, statute-books are filled with laws which are evaded, 

 or work results opposed to those expected from them, all tending to 

 establish in the popular mind an injurious contradiction between law 

 and common sense. And what supreme diffidence should there be 

 when we are endeavoring to arrive at, not some knowledge in a special 

 science, not the best policy in a matter of law or state, but when we 

 approach the highest questions : How best can we interpret Nature so 

 as to form a conception of its informing sph'it ? If a man die, shall he 

 live again ? What are the sanctions and what the standard of right 

 conduct? Which is the higher reverence, that which accepts the 

 dictum of a local and arbitrary authority in response to these ques- 

 tions, or that which considers them patiently in the light of all human 

 experience to the present day, by the aid of the highest faculties we 

 possess ? We are often told to bow to authority in the singular, but 

 we are surrounded not by authority but by authorities, many and 

 diverse. Among them all religious, social, or scientific we can but 

 lean on such common sense as we possess to aid us in selection and 

 discipleship. 



I have defined truth to be the reality of things underlying our par- 

 tial knowledge of them. Our forefathers thought of truth as a thing 

 which they might grasp as fully and perfectly as a child's hand in- 

 closes a pebble ; our conception is of something which we may ap- 

 proach, but never possess, save in the restricted field of axiom. We 

 think of truth as of the dim face of a star, discerned through difficulties 

 of distance, distortions of media, and defects of the seeing eye. The 

 old view of finality, completeness, and perfection in knowledge, we 

 discard as utterly disproved by fact. Science knows nothing of the 

 infallibilities it was aforetime thought necessary to assume. The in- 

 fallible standards of Church, Bible, and intuition have never yielded 

 to inquiry more than the verbal husk of assumed certainty. Science 

 accepts the risks of a fallibility which can not be escaped, but which 

 it reduces to a minimum by the co-operation of many minds. The 

 desire to be certain, which set up the oracles and established the suc- 

 cessive infallibilities is, however, an intelligible desire. Doubt and 

 ignorance are not pleasant states of mind to acknowledge, and the 



