and most majestic monument of literature, it should be taught as that and no more.  That a man who regards it solely us supreme literature, should impress it upon the young as the supernaturally inspired word of God and the accurate record of objective occurrences, is a piece of the plainest and most shocking dishonesty.  Let a youth be trained in simple and straightforward recognition of the truth that we can know, and can conjecture, nothing with any assurance as to the ultimate mysteries of things.  Let his imagination and his sense of awe be fed from those springs, which are none the less bounteous because they flow in natural rather than supernatural channels.  Let him be taught the historic place and source of the religions which he is not bound to accept, unless the evidence for their authority by and by brings him to another mind.  A boy or girl trained in this way has an infinitely better chance of growing up with the true spirit and leanings of religion implanted in the character, than if they had been educated in formulae which they could not understand, by people who do not believe them.

The most common illustration of a personal mistake being made the base of a general doctrine, is found in the case of those who, after committing themselves for life to the profession of a given creed, awake to the shocking discovery that the creed has ceased to be true for them.  The action of a popular modern story, Mrs. Gaskell’s North and South, turns upon the case of a clergyman whoso faith is overthrown, and who in consequence abandons his calling, to his own serious material detriment and under circumstances of severe suffering to his family.  I am afraid that current opinion, especially among the cultivated class, would condemn such a sacrifice as a piece of misplaced scrupulosity.  No man, it would be said, is called upon to proclaim his opinions, when to do so will cost him the means of subsistence.  This will depend upon the value which he sets upon the opinions that be has to proclaim.  If such a proposition is true, the world must efface its habit of admiration for the martyrs and heroes of the past, who embraced violent death rather than defile themselves by a lying confession.  Or is present heroism ridiculous, and only past heroism admirable?  However, nobody has a right to demand the heroic from all the world; and if to publish his dissent from the opinions which he nominally holds would reduce a man to beggary, human charity bids us say as little as may be.  We may leave such men to their unfortunate destiny, hoping that they will make what good use of it may be possible. Non ragioniam di lor.  These cases only show the essential and profound immorality of the priestly profession—­in all its forms, and no matter in connection with what church or what dogma—­which makes a man’s living depend on his abstaining from using his mind, or concealing the conclusions to which use of his mind has brought him.  The time will come when society will look back on the doctrine, that they who serve the altar should live by the altar, as a doctrine of barbarism and degradation.